Texas education officials have agreed to grant a creation college more time to prepare recently requested information about its graduate science degree programs.
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board said Tuesday that it will have to wait until April to decide whether Institute for Creation Research can offer its online master's degree in Science Education. The board was scheduled to decide on the group's application for approval next week following an advisory committee's recommendation, but objections arose from pro-evolution outlets.
The Christian school became the target of an "intensely negative campaign" by the press and the secular academic community, the group reported in an e-mail update.
Dr. Raymund Paredes, the state's higher education commissioner, called a meeting with the Institute for Creation Research last Thursday and requested that the group supply additional information to verify that the master's degree program was taught at a graduate level.
The creation institute said it was "glad" to.
Eddy Miller, dean of the institute’s graduate school, sent an e-mail to the board on Monday, requesting more time on behalf of the school “to do justice to the concerns you raised,” according to a news release issued by the coordinating board.
"ICR is pleased to respond to any effort to demonstrate its compliance and its competency in the fields that we teach," said Dr. Henry Morris, who founded the Institute for Creation Research in 1970.
"Our plans now are to prepare the extra material and provide the requested documentation in time for the April 2008 meeting of the THECB."
According to Inside Higher Ed, an online news source for higher education, Paredes has raised three concerns in the questions he asked the institute to address.
First, the commissioner asked how the institute would provide its students "proper exposure to the experimental side of science" since they would be learning online. He noted that it was a question he would ask of any online science program and wasn't related specifically with creationism. He also wanted the institute to either revise their curriculum or explain why it differed from those offered in conventional masters of science programs in Texas. The third request was for the institute to present material that show research activities underway and show them to be “based on solid scientific research."
Paredes said it was “not unusual” for him to raise questions after an initial review and approval, noting that people should not assume that the proposal is dead just because of the questions and the request for a delay.
“Because this is an issue that’s controversial to a lot of people, we want to make sure we look at this matter thoroughly and fairly,” he said, as reported by Inside Higher Ed.
The institute's proposal comes amid a fierce debate on how evolution should be taught in public schools.
Although the school has been offering science degrees in California since 1981, it had to reapply when it moved its headquarters to Dallas last year.
In the e-mail alert, ICR asked supporters to pray for the commissioner and their efforts in preparing its response material.
RSS
“Hugh Ross has developed a creation model that is falsifiable.”
Oh please, do tell!
“Explain what basis you have in the scheme of natural evolution to eliminate Christianity?”
Christianity isn’t my beef, it’s religion and it’s fantasy beliefs which are largely unproven, unprovable, unsubstantiated, and otherwise non credible. I have nothing with any particular religion, my beef is with ignorance of science and how much religion happens to influence people to believe in unsubstantiated things.
“My challenge is and has been that if theism is a matter of biological materialism, than it is a product of evolution.”
Yes, and as I eluded to earlier not all things that stem from evolution are eternally beneficial. Some things that occur via evolution served a purpose but now in the context in which the animal lives serves no purpose at all.
“These beliefs are in fact genetically determined.”
I don’t know about that, I think it has more to do with memes and how they are passed down generation to generation with no one bothering to even question their very purpose. We might be genetically predisposed to make up and manifest beliefs that have no evidence at all simply to explain away otherwise confounding things, but this isn’t a logical or rationale process, it’s a process stemming from recognizing patterns attributing some agent/god behind the scenes and attributed such actions to a god. In other words, sheer ignorance.
After all, why do we have every cultural that have believed in elemental gods that controlled the weather and other confounding things. It all stems from ignorance of how nature really works.
“If you think that methodological evolution is the way to go, then why not argue for it?’
I am arguing for it, read my posts and you’d realize this. I am one of the few on here that seems to even understand evolution at any length and I am trying to stem the tide of ignorance that is rampant
“A guiding hand does not intend to refer to the idea that God’s hand is literally helping each and every single step of every fertilization and formation”
Sure it does, in fact that’s ID principle claim. It asserts that certain complex systems couldn’t have evolved via natural cumulative progressive steps and thus they assert that god/ID designer created the system in an instant. To assert that the designed created something instantly is in principle the same argument as saying ‘god did it’ as even it’s not god the designer has the same skill set. This is also was Behe and other ID folk ignore paleontology fossils as evidence and only deal with biological systems.
“It is the scientific progressives that maintain they don’t know how life began or why it works the way it does.”
This has NOTHING to do with organisms evolving and you know, this ONLY pertains to how life initially got here and not evolution.
“I would very much like to see a scientist build a machine that can reproduce another machine that can reproduce’
Where have you been? Scientists are nearly done in creating a new synthetic species of bacteria from scratch.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080125-artificial-life.html
www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/synthetic-bacterial-genome/press-release/
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402203.html?hpid=sec-health
“that you should presume to be the one who gets to decide who is right and who is dead.’
Again, you’re a tosser. I am NOT talking about ANYONE being put to death, I am saying in democratic consensus we should determine what we are to believe in and question even wishful propositions in afterlife that we have NO EVIDENCE OF.
“As I said embryonic stem cell research has developed zilch, zero, nada.”
Well it can’t exactly contribute a whole lot if it’s continually denied any ability to do research and funding by our govt. now can’t it? You’re complaining that it hasn’t accomplished anything, but that’s not it’s fault, it’s b/c of the govt that’s in way preventing progress again.
“There is no way on God’s green earth that you can justify despising your neighbors because they go to church on Sundays to honor their creator.”
Well to me it’s akin to a delusion as an adult believing in santa, so in that regard I can justify looking down on them for their beliefs in things that lack empirical backing is something to be questioned.
“It is interesting that you admit that we have a spiritual nature. Shall I presume you think it is only useful for getting high with LSD? I’m being facetious, but some of your posts make me wonder.”
Not necessarily a spiritual nature, but we perceive our world differently based on the random chemicals going on in our brains in given instances. IE, this is why people use such drugs to experience altered states of reality and so they can view the world from a different view. This is the same reason people engage in meditation and why they isolate themselves in a cave or fast without food for long periods. All of which give rise to a deeper appreciation and greater opening of the minds eye. It doesn’t’ mean one is one a 1 way conversation with god, but that the chemicals in the brain reflect reality differently.
“I couldn’t agree and disagree more, I say it is like a man who looks at a design and dismisses it as not having a designer.”
Oh, you mean like all the designed systems Behe used in his arguments in Dover? All of which were shown that natural evolution could clearly resolve. The concept of what is and isn’t ‘designed’ is largely subjective and stems directly to ones ignorance. In Behe’s case the many instances he used HE couldn’t figure it out in a natural way so he asserted it must be instantly designed. This is an argument from credulity as it assumes that not only will any current people ever figure something out, but neither will anyone in the future.
“I think that the biggest point of contention between evolution and creationists is when adhoc terms are used such as ‘unguided’ are used in public”
Look up natural selection and all the natural processes involved, there is no guiding hand there. Organic systems evolve as they respond to their habitat and the selective pressures.
“Again, this is a moral judgment and prescription that presumes you know what the best belief for individuals and society is as well as assuming authority as to deciding what is worth keeping”
It’s as much a logical judgment as a moral one. We shouldn’t be compelled to keep beliefs in things that don’t hold any evidence for their proposition, to do otherwise is delusion. it might fun to believe in such wishfull things as they make us feel more important and warm and fuzzy on t the inside, but this type of delussion in beliving in things for which their is non crebile evidence is like an adult believing in santa.
“so far as I have indicated through the numerous researches and studies that have been done Christianity gives far more benefit in the evolutionary social context than atheism ever has or could ever hope to.”
It’s pretty easy to feel overly sappy when you sincerely consider that death on earth doesn’t matter as you’ll have another chance to see loved ones later. But is there evidence for this? Nada. Same goes for miracles. Yet, these parts of a belief system are critical to keeping it going for it one realizes miracles and after life are unsubstantiated then it’s a process of self delusion and we’re wishfully making manifestations not based on reality that run our lives and decisions and this is wrong.
“Atheism is still a belief involving many things that stem directly from denying the existence God. I think your argument from ignorance is eclipsed by the evidence for design”
Fine, show me the great omnibenevolent design that all theists think the universe was expressly made for us and I’ll smash them 1 by 1.
This article didn't mention what the curriculum is, it might be necessary to find out what the curriculum is, how it will be taught and what the outcomes are before commenting... This shouldn't be a dicussion between evolution and creation but rather a discussion about the class, how, what and why it is being taught.
AO: “Show me how ID is Science, how it's falsifiable, what geniune evidence it has, what predictions it has or can make. Also show how Evolution isn't falsifiable.”
Hugh Ross has developed a creation model that is falsifiable.
You have yet to deal with the issue that I initially brought to the table. Explain what basis you have in the scheme of natural evolution to eliminate Christianity? You are on Christian Post after all, and not for the news. My challenge is and has been that if theism is a matter of biological materialism, than it is a product of evolution. These beliefs are in fact genetically determined. Why should you think that Christian theism is worth going against evolution to destroy? It seems rather counter-intuitive and not very altruistic coming from a so-called naturalist. Not only does it reveal your own doubts about the ability of Mother Nature to take care of herself, but it also implies a rigid contradiction of your allegiance to her super-natural selection. Why bother? What is it exactly that is eating you? If you think that methodological evolution is the way to go, then why not argue for it? Why become so disoriented that it affects your nervous system and creates animosity and hard feelings? If your car broke down on a dark street in town, and you saw five big guys coming toward you, wouldn’t it ease your mind for you to know that they were just leaving a Bible study? I mean, with all this bitterness of soul, what is it that Christians have done to you?
You may find it interesting to know, a study was conducted in 2004 by Bradford University that found that of the 32 wars in the 21st century only three were caused by religion. Just when you were about to say…
“Many evolutionists recognize the complexity of reproduction alone and deduce that there must be at least a guiding hand”
AO: “A guiding hand, are you kidding me?”
No I am not. A guiding hand does not intend to refer to the idea that God’s hand is literally helping each and every single step of every fertilization and formation, but of course why on earth should I think that you had that much common sense? It is the scientific progressives that maintain they don’t know how life began or why it works the way it does. Allow me to take you by the hand and guide you, just because we (theists) recognize the purposeful arrangements of the parts and the fine tuning of the heart of the universe does not mean that we know how it works, other than to se the majesty of God. I would very much like to see a scientist build a machine that can reproduce another machine that can reproduce. It is also an interesting consideration to think about the idea of the most intelligent materialists in the world spending their whole lifetime trying to prove that no intelligence made us in the first place.
AO: “What a tosser you are. I have nothing against Christians per say, but more so with religion all together. And I have just as much reason to despise all the other religions as yours, get over yourself.”
I would say that it is atheism has attributed much to the world’s anguish and turmoil. But in any case, you still have yet to show why you think that you should presume to be the one who gets to decide who is right and who is dead. After all if religious people have a virus, the only way to get rid of it is to kill them. Of course your hatred doesn’t go that deep. You just like to antagonize people because it makes you feel superior in your unbelief. There is no way on God’s green earth that you can justify despising your neighbors because they go to church on Sundays to honor their creator.
“It is adult stem cells that are expediently advancing medical treatments, embryonic research has done nothing.’
AO: “Geee, I wonder why? Oh I know, only B/c GW has deemed it unethical, maybe that’s why embryonic research hasn’t yielded much. Ya think?”
As I said embryonic stem cell research has developed zilch, zero, nada. As I stated humanistic naturalism does not leave much in the way of moral standards. Hitler dehumanized the Jews before he could utilize them in his experiments.
AO: “I never said or implied that drugs or therapy would replace the spiritual nature that we all seek.”
It is interesting that you admit that we have a spiritual nature. Shall I presume you think it is only useful for getting high with LSD? I’m being facetious, but some of your posts make me wonder.
AO: “To intentionally lie to yourself in sake of facing reality is bordering on self delusion. It’s akin to a wife finding evidence that her husband is cheating on her and dismisses it b/c it isn’t what she want to believe.”
I couldn’t agree and disagree more, I say it is like a man who looks at a design and dismisses it as not having a designer. Or someone who
AO: “Science isn’t about disproving god, it’s about following evidence, drawing conclusions, making testable predictions and following it wherever it leads.”
I agree wholeheartedly, my quarrel is not against science, it is with those who presume to speak in the name of science as to the existence of Father God, in favor of Mother Nature. I think that the biggest point of contention between evolution and creationists is when adhoc terms are used such as ‘unguided’ are used in public funded class rooms. This is directly connected to philosophy and is unwarranted.
AO: “Atheism isn’t some label in which the user up and becomes more akin to animal behavior. All it refers to is if the person has a belief in god. It’s a stance that is based on evidence against theism, mostly in that religion is a man architected manifestation that was crafted from a period of ignorance of nature. In the past primitive people couldn’t possibly know certain aspects related to weather, the sun, and other elements and in their primal ignorance attributed them to the work of god(s). This evolutionary progression in the beginning had humanity bewildered as to why the rains came and went and other trivial things we know aren’t controlled by gods.”
Atheism is still a belief involving many things that stem directly from denying the existence God. I think your argument from ignorance is eclipsed by the evidence for design. Agnosticism would be your more tenable option. It is interesting to me how the prophets of old explain many scientific things beyond the knowledge of their day.
SP: 3. Theistic belief helps cure self-destructive characteristics such as addictions.
AO: 3. “So does some medicines, but yes inner strength and will are important and some people need a crutch it seems.”
Now let’s put it in context: You pointed out how numerous things may be able to replace humanity’s need for religion such as drugs, psychology, etc, etc. My assertion was that while atheists would need to turn to these things (may I point out that for some it may be just because of their meaningless existence in a materialistic universe without God), Christians find fulfillment and liberation in knowing God.
AO: “I don’t think religion is all bad, however the dogmatic irrational views that invariable follow generally retard progress and cause enough harm to make it less desirable or even worthy of keeping around at all.”
Again, this is a moral judgment and prescription that presumes you know what the best belief for individuals and society is as well as assuming authority as to deciding what is worth keeping. If you are a materialist as you seem to be, the only way you and Dawkins can eliminate faith in God, is to eliminate the actual believers themselves. In the end when it comes to who decides what to do and what moral standards to adhere to, it is done by the one with the most power and this is what I meant when I said, without a moral law giver, “might makes right.” Yes, there does seem to be a logical harmony in survival of the fittest, but this is not what I was referring to.
AO: “Well, if my appendix was more harm that it was worth (appendicitis), also like Wisdom teeth, then indeed in would be only logical to seek to remove it.”
I agree! That is not the point, so far as I have indicated through the numerous researches and studies that have been done Christianity gives far more benefit in the evolutionary social context than atheism ever has or could ever hope to. I believe it was Dawkins who actually deemed Mother Teresa as mentally ill. But then again, I guess he thinks all Christians are mentally ill. His indictment of Mother Teresa is however in accordance to how much she was willing to give, without taking back. While I am not so familiar with her that I can say what her motives were, I think I do know enough about Christian compassion to say that if there is a natural explanation as to religious belief; I maintain that atheism would not be on top of the beliefs on the ladder of progressive sociology.
Show me how ID is Science, how it's falsifiable, what geniune evidence it has, what predictions it has or can make. Also show how Evolution isn't falsifiable.
Please, lets stay on one topic at a time and adress them accordingly instead of jumping all over the place.
“If our mind was pure material, it would seem more likely that we would think in a single dimension”
Why? More speculation. Why would only a single dimension perception be more logical, we live in a 4 dimensional universe after all. In primitive tribal groups death would be something quite common and what better way to rationalize and explain it away then to delude yourself and your kids that (somehow) in the end they will be able to see you later. Quite consoling an idea, but like many other things in religion these ideas were spawned in times of utter ignorance of even the most trivial things we know today.
So why do we really doubt that Poseidon controls the seas but still find the idea of life after death possible? Easy, b/c it’s what we want to hear, it’s comforting to think and believe in. But just b/c something is comforting doesn’t mean it’s true.
“I doubt that the reason you became an atheist was because of evolution”
Well, I’ll give you some credit that is after all true. I never swayed my opinion solely on one single branch of knowledge.
“Many evolutionists recognize the complexity of reproduction alone and deduce that there must be at least a guiding hand”
A guiding hand, are you kidding me? Do you realize that the majority of fertilized eggs never become zygotes as some have chromosome issues.? Those that become an embryo, not all make it to the lining as some get stuck in the fallopian tubes, sometimes killing the mother (ooopps). Of those that do make it to the lining, the majority of those also don’t even become fetuses as many of those die prematurely. And then, many babies that are born are born with serious chromosome issues like having a heart on the outside of the body and tons of other abnormalities that kill the infant. Guiding hand huh?
“but I’m sure that you would be the type to attempt humiliating impressionable youths who believe in God by making an example of them in front of the class……It is a sad indictment on tax-payer funded universities”
No, that’s not for me, I don’t work in biology, but am in Science. I will inform people of the facts and leave it at that. Most people by the time they are in biology or have entered college have already considered the concept of god and already have an idea of their path. If the knowledge is revealed to them convinces them one way or the other, then perhaps their faith wasn’t that strong to begin with. Also, those that attend colleges or universities do so via their own money and they aren’t paid for publicly by taxpayers
“It is adult stem cells that are expediently advancing medical treatments, embryonic research has done nothing.’
Geee, I wonder why? Oh I know, only B/c GW has deemed it unethical, maybe that’s why embryonic research hasn’t yielded much. Ya think?
“because it is trying to disprove a purposeful creator……that this is what your science is all about; disproving God and the need for God”
Science can’t include assumed supernatural agents that can work actively in a whim, what part of that do you not understand? Science isn’t about disproving god, it’s about following evidence, drawing conclusions, making testable predictions and following it wherever it leads.
‘You don’t want investigation and scientific enquiry, what you want as you have said before, is to eliminate the Christian faith”
What a tosser you are. I have nothing against Christians per say, but more so with religion all together. And I have just as much reason to despise all the other religions as yours, get over yourself. I follow the evidence where it leads and not just scientific, but archeological, historical, physiological, and many others. Collectively I see religion as a by-product of a time from when humanity was ignorant.
“It only explains variations within different species, as I noted before, evolution has little explaining power.”
What, you’re saying it can’t explain variations in species that are transitionals then? Or, you’re saying DNA coding only falls within a creationist definition of ‘kind’? Or, no let me guess, you’re going to take the token ID stance that no transitional species exist at all right?
“Changing the pigment in the wings of a moth does not account for the moth and the pigment in the first place.”
Oh, so you’re saying no transitional species exist at all then, is that really what you’re saying?
“but the philosophy de jure is materialism which cannot explain why your mind thinks the way it does’
I know, its faaaar less rationale then to attribute ones ability to think and define its own brain in a physical maner i which the brain actually is physical as opposed to solely by an invisible agent that existence for is quite swallow itself.
Religions and much of their misunderstandings about the world and Universe are self evident of people that lacked knowledge so much that they attributed anything outside their explanation as being directly related to the work of gods and demons. Is it any wonder that in every culture known we have evidence of suppositious primitive people that attributed weather and trivial acts that David Blane outdoes as ‘miracles’? Clearly the people of the past were ignorant and were easily fooled and lacked the required critical thinking and knowledge to overcome otherwise trivial questions.
Congrats on your philosophical and spiritual awaking and how it allowed you to recognize others. For some it takes life’s hardest moments for such things to emerge and be realized, personally I take it in more of a philosophical outlook that we are interconnected and will equally share our triumphed successes and downtrodden miseries and it’s in our own interest to work collectively.
My point with the Ph.D, and higher education is a valid one. The better educated one is, the more they tend to not be religious at all. Why is interesting, but personally I think those of higher education have come to see religion for what it is and don’t find solace in it as the evidence of miracles is waning, while the need for it is as well. Religion can only offer hope in the unfounded such as life after death. Propositions that when analyzed critically we have no reason to believe in even on face value. Only wishful thinking in eternal life would be enough to convince one that they wont die. Who wouldn’t want to believe in such an idea? To intentionally lie to yourself in sake of facing reality is bordering on self delusion. It’s akin to a wife finding evidence that her husband is cheating on her and dismisses it b/c it isn’t what she want to believe.
“While you attempt to redefine terms and sidestep the evidence for a Creator, you adhere to the magic of spontaneous generation,”
I don’t define or redefine god, theists do that, it’s their idea and they choose how the concept will be defined and how skeptics will debunk it. Spontaneous generation means that it literally all came together in an instant, but that isn’t’ what scientists think at all. Rather the evidence we have shows that early nucleotides formed polynucleotide’s, which make up RNA, which then formed DNA
Well, if my appendix was more harm that it was worth (appendicitis), also like Wisdom teeth, then indeed in would be only logical to seek to remove it.
“Furthermore I think it can be argued that if atheism is closer to primal animal life, this would mean that theism is in fact a higher order of complexity in evolution.”
Atheism isn’t some label in which the user up and becomes more akin to animal behavior. All it refers to is if the person has a belief in god. It’s a stance that is based on evidence against theism, mostly in that religion is a man architected manifestation that was crafted from a period of ignorance of nature. In the past primitive people couldn’t possibly know certain aspects related to weather, the sun, and other elements and in their primal ignorance attributed them to the work of god(s). This evolutionary progression in the beginning had humanity bewildered as to why the rains came and went and other trivial things we know aren’t controlled by gods.
“You pointed out how numerous things may be able to replace humanity’s need for religion such as drugs, psychology, etc, etc.”
I never said or implied that drugs or therapy would replace the spiritual nature that we all seek. I don’t think numerous things can replace genuine spirituality. However, certain things could and those that can cause a heightened spiritual awareness such as: meditation, sensory deprivation and being in exile/isolation or an enclosed space, and yes some drugs do cause an apparent heightened spirituality, ask the Native Americans why they are so fond of Peyote.
“If natural evolution provided a means of human fulfillment by religious belief, then how can you presume you are the one who determines what is right?”
“So we agree on at least one thing, natural evolution has no explaining power as to how or why we are here.’
Well, ok to a degree Evolution can explain how life at least got here via life adapting according to its niche habitat and how we are related to it all. But what it can’t do is explain how life originated, whether aliens left DNA here or the other methods. ‘Why we are here’ might not even be answerable
“SP: It does not negate the fact that scientific naturalists have rendered evolution unfalsifiable.”
How is evolution unfalsifiable? It can be falsified b/c it relies on actual natural evidence that can be observed, tested and predictions can be made accordingly. Want to falsify it, find evidence that is credible and testable and refutes evolution. Find Dinosaur fossils in the same layer as human ones. Find DNA evidence that implies animals don’t inherit their parents DNA, mutations and so on.
“might is right,”
No, if you read anything in biology you’d realize evolution and ‘survival of the fittest’ doesn’t strictly imply ‘only the strong survive’. Most times it’s organisms that operate the most ethically and in a symbiotic and altruistic nature. Life and how successful it is, is not all about dominating but many times social cohesion and teamwork.
Correction:
AO: “It’s fairly apparent, the more educated one is the less religious they are if at all.”
Kind of begs the question doesn’t it? Is this is your atheism of the gaps? It’s a double standard that is not worthy of an answer, but nevertheless lets dig in. I think these are the results of numerous issues in a person’s life. For example, I doubt that the reason you became an atheist was because of evolution. Many evolutionists recognize the complexity of reproduction alone and deduce that there must be at least a guiding hand. There are numerous social pressures in the scientific community; you are a great example of that. I don’t know if you are a professor, but I’m sure that you would be the type to attempt humiliating impressionable youths who believe in God by making an example of them in front of the class. It is a sad indictment on tax-payer funded universities. So, there is a combination of secular humanism being drilled into impressionable minds along with peer pressure (which includes a secular elite mindset) which can culminate into a self-sufficient pride by grad school. There is also the internal pressure of young adults who find themselves free of adult supervision where the opportunity is not only right for exploring sex, drinking, etc, but it is often encouraged by peers. Thus atheism becomes expedient in dealing with one’s conscience. There are at least a few studies on the effects society and various pressures giving shape to the atheist.
AO: “To ban stem cell research b/c a zygote according to theists has a soul, while it also has fewer cells than a fly is entirely illogical.”
You should brush up on your research. It is adult stem cells that are expediently advancing medical treatments, embryonic research has done nothing. Nevertheless, it is a matter of ethics, something that you cannot account for as an atheist. It is also interesting that you gave this example when this is a perfect example of distinguishing atheism from Christianity. I know that Dawkins argues unpersuasively that Christianity is evil; when in fact once again it is Christians who are alone for all practical purposes in fighting for human dignity.
AO: “I’ve read Behe’s, Dembski’s work, I think that should suffice. In principle, ID is a god of gaps of ignorance argument.”
Why do I find that hard to believe? Numerous things that you have stated seem to reveal that you are not all that familiar with ID. I might be wrong, but of course they’re not here to defend their selves so it’s easy for you to criticize them and we’d be none the wiser.
While you attempt to redefine terms and sidestep the evidence for a Creator, you adhere to the magic of spontaneous generation, which is completely unsubstantiated. Yet it attempts an explanation as to how and why we are here, not in the mystical sense of course, because it is trying to disprove a purposeful creator. You might as well of confessed that this is what your science is all about; disproving God and the need for God, thus the necessary Being becomes the God of the gaps. You claim that you are going at this from a purely scientific point of view, yet what I see is an atheist without clothes. You don’t want investigation and scientific enquiry, what you want as you have said before, is to eliminate the Christian faith. Dawkins noted how evolution allowed him to finally be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. I am glad I can be an intellectually fulfilled Christian.
As you more or less admitted, the superpower of natural selection only works with what it already has available. It only explains variations within different species, as I noted before, evolution has little explaining power. Changing the pigment in the wings of a moth does not account for the moth and the pigment in the first place.
Numerous times you use words like meaning, purpose, and even presume morality. I would argue that when someone is submerged in the real world, it is not easy to break away from it. Sometimes it is a difficult thing to live out the Christian faith; I cannot imagine how difficult it would be as an atheist. Not only is it a rather shallow existence, but the philosophy de jure is materialism which cannot explain why your mind thinks the way it does, it only accounts for the mere fact that you are here: Seems rather disconnected. If our mind was pure material, it would seem more likely that we would think in a single dimension.
The most intelligent people I know including those with PhDs believe in Christ. I have heard plenty of debates over the years. The outcome of the debates is directly linked to how much knowledge one has in comparison to the other on the particular subject, which debater has more personal persuasive power and which one is most able to organize and articulate his thoughts. Whoever wins the debate doesn’t mean his view is correct. We all come to the table with our underlying presumptions.
So far, you have yet to provide good evidence that shows the need for an elimination of theism, although this has been your overarching theme you have been attempting to develop nor have you provided any evidence that it is inferior to atheism. I doubt you would have your appendix removed on the grounds of being unsure of its benefits or usefulness. We have malpractice lawsuits today to punish doctors who remove limbs and body parts unnecessarily. To say that theism is an unnecessary part of life is arrogant to say the least, assuming natural evolution is true. Furthermore I think it can be argued that if atheism is closer to primal animal life, this would mean that theism is in fact a higher order of complexity in evolution. You pointed out how numerous things may be able to replace humanity’s need for religion such as drugs, psychology, etc, etc. when in fact atheists need these things, because they do not have God. If natural evolution provided a means of human fulfillment by religious belief, then how can you presume you are the one who determines what is right? Again this reveals the tendency of naturalism leading towards its natural conclusion; dictatorship, might makes right, survival of the fittest. You claim that theists are ignorant, when in fact you have no basis to think that you are right in accepting atheism.
AO: “I will agree that Christians have done good throughout time, however you likely can’t name an instance where a person being Christian…was the only reason why they performed good deeds. More over, non Christians have also done both good and non good deeds, so one being Christian is hardly a remedy for all things.”
SP: I was brought up in church, but didn’t really put my whole heart into it. There was a point in time when I felt compelled to leave the tech school I was attending, quite my job, break my lease and move out in the street. It was at the conclusion of three days of anguish that God revealed Himself to me in a deeply personal and powerful way. He revealed to me my sinful nature and the depth of His grace. Where I was uninterested in learning about anything besides the next rock album, my mind now had opened up with a thirst for knowledge. As many others who have experienced God, I was no longer so self-absorbed to be blind to the needs of others. Where I would have spent my time taking from others, I now found myself giving. Whether it is giving a stranger a ride on a cold day or helping a neighbor with their rent, my experience with God is directly correlated to my redirected focus from helping myself to giving of myself. There is a difference between religion and God. I liken my conversion as to stepping out of religion and into reality. My story is not unique. There are plenty of others besides me, those who went from desperation to hope, from fear to confidence, from apathy to compassion, from recklessness to responsibility, from addiction to dignity, from class room bullies to leading prayer breakfasts, our stories are not hard to find. It was under the inspiration of the Almighty that John Wesley’s preaching directly influenced what was to be England’s most certain bloodiest revolution. William Carey as an outcast disobeyed England and under the divine direction of almighty God went to India bringing such a revolutionary change that his waves are still felt more than a century later. The stories can go and on and on, how Christ is changing lives and how they in turn touch other lives.
AO: “ID is unfalsifiable and thus isn’t science. I realize the difference between old school YEC and ID folk, however their central point appeals to god of the gaps of ignorance on what we’ve YET to fuly understand and in their credulity by fiat declares it’s proof of god.
SP: “To reject ID or creationism purely on the grounds of falsifiability, should also result in natural evolution being dethroned as unfalsifiable.”
AO: “ID/Creationism lack credible evidence, so it’s not solely about falsifiability.”
SP: It does not negate the fact that scientific naturalists have rendered evolution unfalsifiable.
AO: “Evolution is a model depicting HOW LIFE CHANGES OVER TIME nothing more. It’s not meant to bring a higher understanding of our own humanness or principled ethics.”
SP: But it does speak to our humanity by its philosophical underscores.
AO: “I don’t think religion is all bad, however the dogmatic irrational views that invariable follow generally retard progress and cause enough harm to make it less desirable or even worthy of keeping around at all.”
SP: Again, this is a moral judgment and assumes that you know what is best worth keeping. You also presume the role of a prophet of Mother Nature. You claim that you are not a nihilist, but I say it all comes through the same machinery, without God, might is right, there is a thin line of separation which is revealed by your hostility toward God and people of faith. I think it is unwarranted.
So we agree on at least one thing, natural evolution has no explaining power as to how or why we are here.
Just for good measure and so you know where I am comming from and why ID really is an arguement of the god of the gaps of ignorance, take a look at some of Tyson's work.
http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/PerimeterOfIgnorance.php
Chris,
‘I am sure that you know that time began at the big bang?”
Yes, that’s what I said. So since both space and time aka space/time began 13.7 Billion years ago there is no way of measuring the time involved before. You can’t ask how much time occurred before as the very concept of time didn’t exist yet.
“we have no reason to believe that matter did not exist…….the beginning of the big bang would have approached a singularity, not nothingness.”
Well according the 1st law of thermodynamics matter most certainly always existed, either as matter or energy or in some transitory state in between the two as that’s how it can only exist. A singularity exactly, this is what Cosmologist say. The singularity isn’t ‘nothing’ so the big bang doesn’t imply that something came from nothing either, as the singularity is certainly a something. These aren’t wild guesses, we just use what the evidence suggests.
“Please tell me where Hawking says that the laws are only able to be what they are, or even suggests.”
Read ‘The Universe in a Nutshell’. He’s not the only one either, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Steven Weinberg and many others suggest the same thing.
“This is not what ID suggests doing, you need to study ID. I am not bothering debating something that isn't related to ID.”
I’ve read Behe’s, Dembski’s work, I think that should suffice. In principle, ID is a god of gaps of ignorance argument. It argues from a point of personal incredulity that complex things that YET aren’t understood will never be understood and this is quite arrogant. Don’t know how the sun works, don’t bother it’s too complex anyway and it’s obvious and ID agent /god did it right? That is, in a nutshell what ID is selling.
Regardless if a person is religious at all, by throwing ‘god did it’ to answer away confounding questions wont benefit anyone, they realize this and know that’s why it’s not in anyone best interest to operate in this manner.
“Science does not just recommend referring to natural explanations, it forces this…. Also, sometimes natural explanations are not so simple’
Wonder why…b/c this is the only way that things in our natural world can be observed, tested and predicted according to the scientific method. The natural answer is always easier to understand then having to infer and describe some unfalsifiable invisible agent and how it works in conjunction to achieve the answers your looking for. What can ID theory predict? That things that are utter complex must be designed? How does that benefit anyone? How can this information be used for humanity, as opposed to the derived knowledge gained through evolution?
Have you looked out stupid design? and this is a 5 min piece that runs for an hour, just to put it into perspective.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw
seedplanter,
“we do not see adults such as Antony Flew becoming believers in these fairy tales as they do with theism and after years of skepticism at that.”
Well no duh pal, that’s b/c only a fool would consider santa, fairies, leprechauns and the like as even believable to begin with b/c we already know and accept they are human architected manifestations. They have no basis on REAL believability as most sane people mutually agree that indeed they don’t exist. This mutual conclusion is based on the evidence against them being real and the origins of the belief to begin with.
“while I think that natural evolution directly infers magic with its spontaneous generation.
Fine, where’s the magic? We have 1000’s of independent tests that show how natural selection is the process that guides Evolution and once again you’re attempting to equate Evolution as being how life originated, which is disingenuous and wrong. Evolution ONLY DEALS WITH LIVE EVOLVING AFTER IT ALREADY EXISTS. Thus why Darwin’s book was ORIGIN OF SPECIES and not ORIGIN OF LIFE. So there is no wand waving and no secret man hiding behind a curtain pulling strings, it all happens according to a system of processes that are entirely natural and requires no mystic supernaturalism. Just like everything else in our Universe, it all occurs naturally. So, again I ask where is the magic?
“Evolution does not exactly have its origins in science.’
Fine, then where are it’s origins then? Math? Oh, no I got it, Engineering! Get real ok.
I don’t know how many studies have been done, but they always come back showing the same results. That the higher intellectually and more academically accredited one is, the less and less religious they are if at all. The last results showed that barely 40% of all scientists even bother with the notion of a personal religious god. And when the results are looked at for those in the most elite of sciences it plummets to only 7% that believe in a personal religious god. Even having a PhD in any realm shows that it drops off. It’s fairly apparent, the more educated one is the less religious they are if at all.
ID has to stand on it’s own two feet with its own evidence and undergo peer review like all other forms of science. They couldn’t bother to do that and instead have attempted numerous times to interject ID/creationism back into the schools. And every time it’s deemed not science, and is deemed a religion as it placate ‘magic man done it’. ID isn’t barred; Behe’s articles have passed peer review so again, get real. However, his articles show his lack of evolutionary understanding and every example he’s used have been shown that natural evolution has answered already. Every instance Behe uses for IC has a natural solution that he confidently ignored on purpose.
I am not referring to materialism as inanimate objects a theists always view it, my depiction of animals and their survivability hinges off of natural selection and evolution and these are organisms so they’re not the same. You’re getting too hung up on materialism. Animals, unlike your wife’s hand bag have an innate purpose, a purpose to LIVE. They very much have a mind of their own. The only thing random in evolution is mutations, and disasters that wipe out species (meteor) everything else isn’t’ random at all.
No, atoms work according to their chemical properties that dictate how they respond and react to each other. IE how water responds when oil is poured on top of water. No, atoms don’t operate on their own. If you know anything about particles at the Quantum level they are so chaotic that predicting a single instances location and velocity in a single moment is impossible.
“Evolution is not a viable explanation in a world where even atheists cannot fit it comfortably within their humanness”
Ugggh, Evolution is a model depicting HOW LIFE CHANGES OVER TIME nothing more. It’s not meant to bring a higher understanding of our own humanness or principled ethics.
“Therefore, how is it that theism does not have its place, if for no other reason to balance out the human depravity of the next Stalin?’
Well, we could look at the inverse and reason that today religion is among the stemming threats to humanities existence. The Islamic world would love to set the world a blaze, and their dogmatic religiosity has everything to do with it. So I think you’d agree dogmatic views, theistic or not aren’t in our best interest. I don’t think religion is all bad, however the dogmatic irrational views that invariable follow generally retard progress and cause enough harm to make it less desirable or even worthy of keeping around at all.
“This is not to suppose that all evolutionists are nihilists, but it does point out that there is no foundation within scientific naturalism for morality.”
And I think you’d agree that only a fool would take a view of Nihilism. With science we can shed light on reason based decisions., IE when a zygote really is human and know if it suffers and so on, this will allow us to make laws that are more in line with reality as opposed to banning stem cell research for no logical or reasonable basis. To ban stem cell research b/c a zygote according to theists has a soul, while it also has fewer cells than a fly is entirely illogical.
I will agree that Christians have done good throughout time, however you likely can’t name an instance where a person being Christian, or religious for that matter was the only reason why they performed good deeds. More over, non Christians have also done both good and non good deeds, so one being Christian is hardly a remedy for all things.
Seedplanter,
As you may know from Philosophy, not all ‘why type questions’ are even answerable. But if for you supplanting a question mark with ‘god did it’ works for you, then you will have fallen in the same path as Newton, Laplace and many other great scientific minds that in their furthest stretches of knowledge grasped for like straws.
“called ‘junk’ DNA.”
‘Junk DNA’ is still referred to as junk b/c of its active role relative to the rest of the Genome. Biology coined it as junk b/c certain marker sections have no active function in defining if a person has blue eyes, blonde hair and is tall.
“To reject ID or creationism purely on the grounds of falsifiability, should also result in natural evolution being dethroned as unfalsifiable.”
ID/Creationism lack credible evidence, so it’s not solely about falsifiability. They are equally as credible as astrology or alchemy, that’s the problem.
Show me how ID/creationism is falsifiable and you might have something. Show me how an invisible, active agent that can change test results in a whim (god) can be included into science and is falsifiable. Show me the evidence that suggests many of the precepts around creation as per religious doctrine. IE, show me evidence for a 6000 year old universe/earth.
“Even you have noted on different posts that there are many gaps”
No I haven’t. Evolution deals with life evolving and nothing more and as mentioned earlier HOW life ORIGINATED is a non-factor to life evolving after it already exists. That’s not a gap in Evolution, that’s a gap in another science, Abiogenesis.
“You seem to enjoy spitting out false premises and psuedo-challenges”
ID is just a neo creationism, nothing more. It’s a god of the gaps of ignorance argument. Sure, ID folk have scraped the 6000 year old Universe/earth as they all know there is no evidence for it and they could never even attempt to use such nonsense.
ID is unfalsifiable and thus isn’t science. I realize the difference between old school YEC and ID folk, however their central point appeals to god of the gaps of ignorance on what we’ve YET to fuly understand and in their credulity by fiat declares it’s proof of god.
"Chris, both space and time were created at the very inception of the big bang and thus there was no measurement of ‘before’ this point. So to ask what occurred prior to the big bang where no time occurred, would be like asking what god was doing for all that time prior to the big bang. It’s a philosophical question that isn’t’ logically grounded and so it can’t be answered. It’s like asking what sound does a one handed clap make"
This statement is one hand clapping, it lacks any support. I am sure that you know that time began at the big bang? The truth is, we have absolutely no idea what was before the big bang, and why it happened. For that matter, we have no reason to believe that matter did not exist, the beginning of the big bang would have approached a singularity, not nothingness. Atheists pull these wild guesses out so that they can disprove God, but they forget that they are wild guesses.
Please tell me where Hawking says that the laws are only able to be what they are, or even suggests.
"Try to think of an equation in which the scientist would answer it with ‘god did this part’ as a way to make it reconcile. It won’t happen."
This is not what ID suggests doing, you need to study ID. I am not bothering debating something that isn't related to ID.
"Of the scientists that are religions, Christian or not, they don’t infer god into their work and equations for these reasons along with Falsifiability."
Well, you defined science as only dealing with the natural, so they of course would look at the natural world and observe it as is, but they do believe that God created it. (If they are Christians they do, this is not negotiable)
"We’re not the only species on Earth to have personality, or a personal nature. Dolphins, Chimps, and various other organisms (namely higher intellect) exhibit a personal nature. Only those of lesser grey matter can’t have human like personality, similar emotions or other brain stemming characteristics."
This depends on how you define personality, but nonetheless, it doesn't solve the dilemna of personality coming from impersonal causes.
" Science prefers to use Occam’s razor of simplicity to devise how answers should be obtained and it recommends in all instances to refer to a natural explanation as opposed to elaborate, fanciful supernaturalism."
Science does not just recommend referring to natural explanations, it forces this. Also, sometimes natural explanations are not so simple, and sometimes the most straightforward and obvious answer is that intelligence is behind a certain event. ID uses the concept of Occam's razor just as well as atheists do.
Voltaire, the atheist confessed, “I want my attorney, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, and I think that then I shall be robbed and cuckolded less often.”
AO: “Some consider the origins of religion stem as a natural phenomena that directly correlates to a child’s mind that isn’t able to know the consequences in certain propositions and consequently obeys everything their parents tell them as a form of self preservation.”
Your diagnosis of religion is laughable. It reveals just how desperate natural evolutionists truly are. Alister McGrath, a former atheist points out the difference with Santa Clause and the tooth fairy: we do not see adults such as Antony Flew becoming believers in these fairy tales as they do with theism and after years of skepticism at that.
AO: “If people must sincerely believe in god perhaps they should consider Deism and Pantheism [as] viable options.”
I think that pantheism is almost a given for naturalists. Often times Bob refers to creation as a form of magic, while I think that natural evolution directly infers magic with its spontaneous generation. I have stated before that the difference between creationists and evolutionists is that the first gives credit to God, while the latter gives credit to Mother Nature. I think it was Darwin’s grandfather who was propagating a pantheistic evolution. Evolution does not exactly have its origins in science. It has merely been hijacked by atheists who use it as a bargaining chip against theism. If it were not so, they would not lock out Intelligent Designers from peer review.
AO: “As mentioned before not everything that comes along via evolution is beneficial to the host replicator, or at one point were beneficial but now serve no purpose for the survivability of the species.”
It is interesting how you use the word ‘purpose’, in meaningless random materialism. How can material have a purpose? Is it possible for it to actually have a mind of its own? Did the atoms have a predetermined vision when they came together to form the necessary elements to our survival on planet earth? Did they confer with one another in as a fanciful fairytale? Evolution is not a viable explanation in a world where even atheists cannot fit it comfortably within their humanness. Atheists cannot even find words to describe the lack of their own significance without calling attention to their meaningfulness. We all have a deep spirituality whereby we can try to deny the existence of God and even go so far as to deny our own existence, but our deeper knowledge reveals otherwise when it is worked out in our words and our life.
Getting back to your argument, this only questions whether or not ‘belief’ is purposeful. Just because there have been numerous religious beliefs that have been less than admirable does not negate them as a whole. We understand the very real threat of bacteria for example, but we know that without healthy bacteria in our digestive system, it would lead to health problems. Not only that, but atheistic naturalism has been followed through with the most blatant disrespect for human life that this world has ever seen. Therefore, how is it that theism does not have its place, if for no other reason to balance out the human depravity of the next Stalin? This is not to suppose that all evolutionists are nihilists, but it does point out that there is no foundation within scientific naturalism for morality. I submit that for all practical purposes it is Christian theism that seems to hold a higher rung on the ladder of evolution, over and above atheism. Hospitals, schools, orphanages, soup kitchens, shelters, missionaries (such as William Carey who impacted India socially, economically, educationally, scientifically, human dignity, etc, etc.), even modern science can be directly traced to the Biblical worldview. You might use different examples of individuals that seem to point to the opposite conclusion. They do not however negate the powerfully positive impact that Christian belief has had on the world.
“Creationists adhere to various timetables”
AO: “Right, we have the luxury of both YEC (6000 years old) and OEC (10,000 years old) both of which are nominally the same considering what Science suggests of a universe that is 13.7 Billion years old.”
No wonder you think I.D. is unscientific. You should consider doing a bit more research before going through all of the hassle of posting without full knowledge of what you think you are attacking. Although I’m unsure of Phillip Johnson’s position, who is not a scientist anyway, I do not know of any proponent of ID that thinks the earth is 6,000 or 10,000 years old. Hugh Ross’ creation model is 14.5 billion years old; he definitely is not the only scientist who recognizes the scientifically calculated age of the earth, through natural means.
This is boring! You seem to enjoy spitting out false premises and psuedo-challenges.
AgentOrnry,
“But why do we have such a system?”
AO: “B/c we live in a matter bound 4th dimensional Universe. Gravity behaves this way b/c of Universal Laws and forces that control matter.”
This explains the way it is, but not why it is that way.
AO: “Read up on the Scientific Method and Falsifiability and it should become clear why supernatural agents like god…can’t be assumed when attempting to acquire knowledge in Science....it negates the very process of Science enquiry.”
AO: “It’s nothing against god per say, rather it’s the fact that to admit that an active agent can in a whim change testing results”
The same thing can be said regarding natural evolution. If creation does account for the universe, then evolution would skew the results of many presumptuous theories, such as the previously called ‘junk’ DNA.
To reject ID or creationism purely on the grounds of falsifiability, should also result in natural evolution being dethroned as unfalsifiable. Even you have noted on different posts that there are many gaps, unexplained events and various phenomena that evolution ‘has yet’ to account for.
“Yes this "universe" is considered to have begun 14 billion years ago, but what about before that?”
Chris, both space and time were created at the very inception of the big bang and thus there was no measurement of ‘before’ this point. So to ask what occurred prior to the big bang where no time occurred, would be like asking what god was doing for all that time prior to the big bang. It’s a philosophical question that isn’t’ logically grounded and so it can’t be answered. It’s like asking what sound does a one handed clap make.
Scientists aren’t just pulling some weird hypothesis out of the air, it’s just the nature of how time and space work. If space/time doesn’t exist, then one can’t measure anything prior to its existence in any meaningful way. Thus the question of what occurred prior to it is bogus and not worth an answer as the person posing the question neglects to realize how time can’t me measured unless it exists.
“we don't even know why it "banged" in the first place.”
You’re right we don’t yet. However to supplant temporary ignorance with ‘god did it’ is most ingenious, it doesn’t advance our knowledge and no one in society benefits from that sort of answer. Conversely, when science devised the germ theory to explain illnesses and disease it became clear god or demons weren’t actively doing such things. This is why science can’t invoke supernatural agents, to do so is counter productive. It’s a shame it’s taken humanity so long to figure this out, we could have had color tv in the 1200’s. =) Worse is (no offense) when religos people tempt to retard progress for sake of religious literalism.I think the collapse of Islamic golden age and the Dark Ages are enough for us to never to consider to turn our backs on science, regardless of what comes with it. If people must sincerely believe in god perhaps they should consider Deism and Pantheism viable options.
“but science is not concerned with the nature of God”
You sure about that? We are learning more about the Universe daily and if this god exists, it surely would be the most ideal engineer; chemist, math wizard and we can learn of his work via the equations we devise to know his work. Surely if a god exists I think his language would equally consist of ‘E=mc2’ as any 10 commandments. Agree? This is what Einstein meant by ‘truly knowing the mind of god’.
“we know that personality does not come from impersonality”
We’re not the only species on Earth to have personality, or a personal nature. Dolphins, Chimps, and various other organisms (namely higher intellect) exhibit a personal nature. Only those of lesser grey matter can’t have human like personality, similar emotions or other brain stemming characteristics.
“Science doesn't have to say that there is a God, but it doesn't have to say that naturalism is the only answer.”
As a by product of falsifiability, the scientific method and others, these are the reasons why gods and supernatural agents aren’t invoked or inferred for answers to confounding questions and why above all else when attempting to answer something it must be founded in natural means. Science prefers to use Occam’s razor of simplicity to devise how answers should be obtained and it recommends in all instances to refer to a natural explanation as opposed to elaborate, fanciful supernaturalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
Chris333, from the books I’ve read regarding Universal Laws, mostly from Hawking and Tyson, they both support the idea that this is perhaps the only way the Universe could exist at all. Any slight tweaking on any of the 21+ constants and the main 4 Universal forces likely couldn’t arise to form a universe to begin with. The 4 forces could be different; some have at least suggested that any such changes would perhaps result in non-existence at all. Thus, the only way to know you exist is to be in one of any number of possible Universes that allows for self realization (us) of this and therefore the Anthropic principle is born.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
“why can't science comment on the evidence as is.”
They do comment on the evidence as it is but they don’t invoke god into equations or issues they don’t’ YET understand as it’s an intellectual dead end. I mean, could you imagine paying scientists all this money for them to come back and tell you ‘god made it that way’. That isn’t even an answer let alone a scientific one. It’s a shrug of the shoulders, an ‘’I dunno’ of ignorance that is masked behind an agent they also can’t explain. If scientists could easily answer hard questions with ‘ god did it, or made it that way’, then they will have no reason to expand their realm of questions as in essence they will be always saying ‘god made it that way. This is principally why the Islam world took a scientific nose dive in the 1100’s, and look where they are now.
Try to think of an equation in which the scientist would answer it with ‘god did this part’ as a way to make it reconcile. It won’t happen.
Try to think of a single knowledge based discovery that was brought about that expressly inferred ‘god did this, that and that over there’ to answer something. You wont find that either.
Of the scientists that are religions, Christian or not, they don’t infer god into their work and equations for these reasons along with Falsifiability. To do so creates an intellectual dead end, it returns nothing of value, benefits no one and is disingenuous.
Seedplanter,
“Creationists adhere to various timetables”
Right, we have the luxury of both YEC (6000 years old) and OEC (10,000 years old) both of which are nominally the same considering what Science suggests of a universe that is 13.7 Billion years old.
“1. Religion is a product of evolution.
2. It is counter-productive to fight against evolution by eliminating belief in God.”
I would say considering the 3000+ recorded religion and gods its not the result of evolution per say, but rather a period of ignorance in which people would sheepishly consider others thoughts more respectable then their own, or what evidence could suggest. Take a look at how easily Mormonism, Scientology and even ‘Jedi’ as religions have recently popped up out of nowhere and it shows people by an large are suckers for particular questions and in sake of admit to ignorance they fill it with ‘god’. It seems throughout mans existence we have hammered ‘god’ into so many places of ignorance that the very concept stems from a more primal, superstitious mindset and utter lack of understanding of nature.
As mentioned before not everything that comes along via evolution is beneficial to the host replicator, or at one point were beneficial but now serve no purpose for the survivability of the species. Religion takes it’s place there with us. Some consider the origins of religion stem as a natural phenomena that directly correlates to a child’s mind that isn’t able to know the consequences in certain propositions and consequently obeys everything their parents tell them as a form of self preservation. Obviously, this sort of willingness to listen and obey 100% everything would be beneficial, however the by product is something of dogmatic nature, namely religion.
“1. We are biologically predetermined, according to natural evolution.
2. If we are predetermined, then we cannot change, but by evolution.”
I take it you haven’t heard Craig Venter and the genetic research in which we will able to refine our own DNA to eliminate many diseases and illnesses.
You are right that we would want to know the nature of this God, but science is not concerned with the nature of God, it is concerned with the nature of the universe, so naturally we would have to go elsewhere for answers to questions about the nature of God. Certainly if we believed the universe to be the product of God, we could deduce some things about God. Namely that this God must be infinite in power (or at least nearly such due to the massiveness of the universe) infinite in wisdom (due to the extreme complexity of the universe) and possibly personal, due to the fact that in the universe at least one personal being exists (namely humans) and we know that personality does not come from impersonality. But again, God Himself would be beyond the scope of scientific studies, just as morals are beyond the scope of scientific studies. So we could either search the religions that make various claims about God's interaction in the world (and through rational logical thinking attempt discerning which is correct if any) or we could simply declare agnosticism and say that even though we have some scientific evidence to believe some god did create the universe, we cannot really know anything more.
I hope this made some sense, and I hope it appeals to science in a basic way. The role of science is very important in this time, but it cannot answer all of our questions, nor should it. Science doesn't have to say that there is a God, but it doesn't have to say that naturalism is the only answer. I find it ironic that atheists use science to back up their claims but then rant and rave whenever a theist attempts to do so, it is really unfair.
Yes you are right about the 4 fundamental laws, but, if you tweak gravity just a little then you get extreme variations in the entire universe. This is highly specified. Of course we could be wrong, but our best tell us that this is the best answer as of now. Of course, I didn't mean that the fundamental laws were not necessary, as in for life to exist, I meant they weren't necessarily the way they are, they could have been different.
"Sure they could have, but as far as science can show, virtually any other different setting and the very Universe wouldn’t exist at all and would re-bang again endlessly until an eventual one we see before us."
This is shear speculation, we don't know that the universe would have re-banged endlessly, we don't even know why it "banged" in the first place.
"It’s nothing against god per say, rather it’s the fact that to admit that an active agent can in a whim change testing results, alter reality, and so on it negates the very process of Science enquiry. "
This wasn't what I was getting at, I was getting at the idea of, why can't science comment on the evidence as is. You have said before that many scientists do have a belief in God, and many in the Christian God. This doesn't affect their ability to interpret data, and it doesn't mean they "leave God out of the laboratory" Rather they feel that the evidence confirms their beliefs and that they are merely following the evidence. Surely you wouldn't say, "These are all smart scientists, except for their belief"
Bob is referring to ‘magic’ as to us that’s how the actions of god are eloquently described in religions. Of the things he’s responsible for in doctrines there is never it seems a how definition of his methods of creating the Universe in a 6 day span, and so on and it just says he did it and leaves it at that. Thus, it’s magic as there is no explanation and it leaves the reader/observer to wonder ‘how’ it was accomplished. The nature of god being more complex is one of the arguments logically used against his own existence as it would create an infinite regress, but I’ll save that for later.
“At the current time it appears that the chances of life coming about randomly are 0%, yet Dawkins still believes it to be true.”
Dawkins, Tyson and others that think life exists elsewhere in the Universe propose this simply on the sheer size of the Universe, the number of planets, and the time involved (13.7 billion years). Using this information they surmise that organic microbial life should be reasonable.
“Finally, it does not seem that a universe could even exist the size of our solar system, let alone function.”
Sure it could have, why not? If one posits god as the designer and this god can do anything a simple single solar system would suffice just for us, so long as this star never died out it would be gravy.
Seedplanter,
AIG, ICR, Hovind are the old YEC type, while ID is fond of those who notice what a crock a 6000 year old Universe is and realize only by creating a scientific sounding form of creationism (ID) will it be allowed into schools.
“evidence has revealed the importance of the stars and planets in the universe as a vital component to our solar system.”
It has? How so? Even so, in a hypothetical universe in which god poofed things into existence he could equally set the rules the Universe would work under and so a single star for ourselves would no doubt get the job done.
“But why do we have such a system?”
B/c we live in a matter bound 4th dimensional Universe. Gravity behaves this way b/c of Universal Laws and forces that control matter.
“Physical scientists by in large admit that the fundamental laws (such as gravity) are not necessary”
Not true. Of the 4 known forces, they aren’t ALL required for life to EXIST and FUNCTION and aren’t required. Electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force are, but Gravity and the weak nuclear forces don’t appear required for life to exist. The four forces as they are, are certainly required for the Universe to work as we see it today.
“they could have been different depending how the 'Big Bang' began”
Sure they could have, but as far as science can show, virtually any other different setting and the very Universe wouldn’t exist at all and would re-bang again endlessly until an eventual one we see before us.
“What then?”
If it can be shown that indeed a god created the universe then naturally Atheists & Theists would have to follow the evidence accordingly. We would want to know the nature of god to know which religious definitions truly conform to this nature and toss out the non -conforming ones.
“Why does science have to exclude this possibility?’
Read up on the Scientific Method and Falsifiability and it should become clear why supernatural agents like god, elves, gnomes and the like can’t be assumed when attempting to acquire knowledge in Science. It’s nothing against god per say, rather it’s the fact that to admit that an active agent can in a whim change testing results, alter reality, and so on it negates the very process of Science enquiry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
BobCoup d'état: “Biological evolution only explains the diversity of life. It doesn't explain the strange childish fantasies of some deluded brainwashed human apes. It also doesn't say anything about morality. It's just science. It's interesting that the creationists who know nothing about evolution, and who even deny the evidence for it, make all these false claims about what evolution is.”
This reveals that your mode of scientific naturalism is based more on emotion than substance.
Either you believe in materialism or dualism, unless you have developed your own kind of theory. There are certain properties of the brain that are physical. There are properties of the mind that I think lean toward dualism, that is to say they are immaterial modes, such as consciousness, reason, beliefs, pain, hope, desires, fear, morals, justice, etc. These are all completely connected to our topic.
In materialism beliefs would be groups of neurons that would include certain physiological properties (how it is structured), electro chemical properties. How can a bunch of neurons connect with propositions? Science cannot tell how this is possible. Materialism cannot explain propositions that are non-physical.
By the way Bob, you are the one who introduced morals on the posts originally. You have made numerous moral assertions and judgments here and there, so flippantly it was difficult not to mention. You have used moral judgments against Christians imposing their morality, when all along, while you cannot account for your morality, you wish to impose it on the rest of us. These are the inconsistencies that I have pointed out to you. Either we were preprogrammed through naturalism or we have a consciousness that is immaterial. What say you Bob?
One more thing, atheists always believe that the universe always existed. I mean you don't believe that one day the universe just popped into existence?
"Scientists, whether or not they believe in the magic man, claim they have strong evidence the universe began about 14 billion years ago. I don't remember any scientist saying the universe has always existed. I do remember them saying they can't know anything for sure about what there was before the Big Bang, so for that question they say "We don't know"."
Yes and I said we can't know anything before too. But some (probably many, especially if you are considering the atheists) when asked about why the universe exists rather than nothing, will respond, "It always has been here" or "These questions are not important". Yes this "universe" is considered to have begun 14 billion years ago, but what about before that? Scientists will pull all sorts of weird hypothesies out of their hat to account for this.
You also say that evolution would not be responsible for religion, why not? You claim it is responsible for deeper thinking, oh but not religion. This is not an argument.
"People dream up this creature with unlimited powers. When somebody points out how childish and insane that idea is, they babble some gibberish about "does not exist in a temporal/spatial arena" as if that justifies the existence of their invisible friend. "
This is 90% gibberish, it is not an argument. You asked me why God would not be responsible to the relationship of cause and effect, and I gave you a simple reasonable answer. You failed to respond, instead you invoked the "Oh it is childish magic" line.
I am asking you to really think about these issues Bob, I think the real problem is that you have a grudge against God, and it has become extreme cynism, I think you have also been reading too much on the anti-Christian side. I have conceded when you made good points, and have challenged you where I felt otherwise, but you haven't done the same for me. When I make a point you do not reply to the content of it, but you just start talking about magic and children.
"God does not exist in a temporal/spatial arena, so He would not need a cause, by definition."
How convenient.
He? Shouldn't you say "it"? Are you sure you want to claim this god monster of your imagination has a gender?
People dream up this creature with unlimited powers. When somebody points out how childish and insane that idea is, they babble some gibberish about "does not exist in a temporal/spatial arena" as if that justifies the existence of their invisible friend.
"For that matter, atheists say that the universe just always existed"
Really?
Scientists, whether or not they believe in the magic man, claim they have strong evidence the universe began about 14 billion years ago. I don't remember any scientist saying the universe has always existed. I do remember them saying they can't know anything for sure about what there was before the Big Bang, so for that question they say "We don't know".
"We don't know" is much more honest than saying "The Magic Man done it".
Also, "we don't know" does not mean "maybe the magic man did it". Invoking magic is for children. Scientists don't do that.
By the way religion is not the product of evolution and I wish seedplanter would stop making claims about scientific facts he knows nothing about. Biological evolution only explains the diversity of life. It doesn't explain the strange childish fantasies of some deluded brainwashed human apes. It also doesn't say anything about morality. It's just science. It's interesting that the creationists who know nothing about evolution, and who even deny the evidence for it, make all these false claims about what evolution is.
Bob, God is by definition beyond time and matter. Time and matter create the necessity for cause. If something exists in a temporal/spatial arena, then it must be caused. God does not exist in a temporal/spatial arena, so He would not need a cause, by definition. For that matter, atheists say that the universe just always existed, this is wild guessing. Why should I ever believe that this universe, which is in the temporal/spatial arena, always existed for all of eternity? It is not just wild guessing, it is irrational guessing.
Right, God must be an imaginary man-made magician because you said so. This is not an argument, this is just talking. If you are not going to give real evidence for this then leave it out of your argument. You do not hear me saying, "Bob you and other atheists are just stupid children who can't think outside of their perception" So don't say those sorts of unsubstantiated remarks to me.
Though I do not agree with a young earth interpretation, you have been guilty of mudslinging and nothing else once again. You just say, "Oh a child could see... this is stupid" or the near equivalent. But you give no argument. I am not going to consider mud.
Once again, your comments on the DI are mud. There is no argument here, I cannot even comment on it.
""Religion is a product of evolution."
No, it's a product of stupidity."
Again no substance.
"There's no evidence for your magic man."
Complete disregard for my entire argument, which you did not refute. You have proved NO argument, you can't even rise above calling names. I usually enjoy your posts Bob, but this was over the top.
ifeelfine, you could not be more wrong. Faith is not about taking a step in the dark, it is about following the light through the dark. Christianity was never, never regarded as believing in something that we could not know and rationally believe in, at least not until modern times. The early Christians would have been against your comment, and I too am against it. Your statement is false, and also disrespectful of all the argument I have posted on here. Please do not make this mistake again.
"Religion is a product of evolution."
No, it's a product of stupidity.
"We are biologically predetermined, according to natural evolution."
Who said that? No animal species, including the human apes, are predetermined, not by anything. Any number of things could have prevented our existence. For example if an asteroid didn't wipe out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, it's unlikely the ape species of today, including us, would ever have evolved from our little mammal ancestors.
Also, we are not the end product of evolution. We are just one small branch on the tree of life. Please stop thinking human apes are a big deal.
"Therefore the existence of the universe presupposes a cause."
And I bet you think the cause is magic, or what you call god. You're just guessing. Wild guesses are a waste of time to talk about.
There's no evidence for your magic man. The idea there's a supernatural magician is a childish invention of primitive people willing to believe any nonsense. Just because you can't answer some question is no excuse to pretend there's a magic man. If you're going to invent a supernatural magician then you have to explain what caused it. Why don't you be honest and say you can't answer unanswerable questions instead of dreaming up some childish invention like a magic man.
By the way, your statements about morality are boring and pointless.
BobCoup d'état: “Who made god? This is the question theists don't like to talk about. Theists say there has always been a god. It's obvious that's wild guessing.”
Allow me to help you earn your philosophy of logic degree.
1. Whatever has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning
3. Therefore the existence of the universe presupposes a cause.
Seems a lot simpler than explaining how a universe could be self-generated; utilizing the magic of spontaneous generation and graciously allowing for our existence, while supplying us with everything that we need, right down to fossil fuels. Too bad Christians aren't gullible enough to believe it.
BobCoup d'état,
SP: "…evolutionary social construct of theism"
BC: The problem is I never know what you're talking about.
Assuming you are a materialist, rather than a substance dualist, religious belief is the acquired result of natural evolution in our biological makeup. In other words it is not due to a spiritual phenomenon of personal choice that one believes in God; it is rather in our genes and predetermined at that. My point is merely this, since religion is a product of evolution why are you fighting against belief in God? Let me break it down:
1. Religion is a product of evolution.
2. It is counter-productive to fight against evolution by eliminating belief in God.
1. We are biologically predetermined, according to natural evolution.
2. If we are predetermined, then we cannot change, but by evolution.
1. You want to change people’s beliefs.
2. This reveals a lack of trust in evolution.
3. This lack of trust reveals an inconsistency between your actions and your said beliefs.
1. You have made numerous moral judgments.
2. This presupposes morality.
3. Your moral judgments either reveal that you believe in moral absolutes,
4. Or they reveal that you wish to impose your personal morality on others.
5. It is evident that you do not believe in a socially contrived morality,
6. If you did I don’t think you would impose your morality on the rest.
7. If you believe that might makes right, you fall into step with Kim Jong-il and the rest of his ilk.
seedplanter, I get the impression you think the Discovery Institute has some value.
Real scientists call the Discovery Institute the "Dishonesty Institute". They are professional liars. They have never discovered anything. All they do is put out press releases every single day, spreading lies about scientists and science. They quote mine scientists (taking quotes out of context to distort their meaning). Whenever a real scientist makes an important discovery, the Discovery Institute immediately starts lying about it. Their biggest lie is the claim that Intelligent Design Magic is science and they never admit the obvious fact the designer is god. These people are thugs, they know they are liars, and they laugh at the gullible creationists who believe everything they say.
"The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board said Tuesday that it will have to wait until April to decide whether Institute for Creation Research can offer its online master's degree in Science Education."
From the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) website:
"For over a hundred years, evolutionists have insisted that the earth is billions of years old, and have arrogantly dismissed any views contrary to this belief. However, the team of seven creation scientists have discovered incredible physical evidence that supports what the Bible says about the young age of the earth."
What more evidence is needed to prove the fake scientists of the ICR are crazy?
Any educated child would laugh at the insanity of "incredible physical evidence that supports what the Bible says about the young age of the earth."
It's a disgrace that the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is even considering letting the ICR clowns offer a degree in science education.
"He would be vastly more complex than the entire universe."
Who made god?
This is the question theists don't like to talk about.
Theists say there has always been a god. It's obvious that's wild guessing.
If I was asked about anything that existed before the Big Bang, my reply would be "I don't know" or "I don't care". Invoking magic for unanswerable questions does not solve any problem. It just creates a new and worse problem - where did the magician come from? "There has always been a magician" is just creating another new problem. People only invoke god when they can't answer a question. That's why god is called the philosophy of ignorance. I prefer science which is the philosophy of discovery. "Scientists are still working on it" is a lot better answer than "it was magic". Christians and other theists keep denying god equals magic, but they are not fooling anyone. God is an imaginary man-made magician, which should be obvious to any child who hasn't been brainwashed.
BobCoup d'état: “These people think the entire universe is 6,000 years old.”
You really should educate yourself before you say what other people think. Creationists adhere to various timetables. I do not know of any I.D. scientists in particular that thinks the earth is 6,000 years old. Most Bible scholars allow for the different literal translations of Genesis’ days to include periods of time. Hugh Ross in particular has proposed the presumed long periods in his creation account. His model is distinct from that of I.D. proponents over theological implications. I.D. does not assume the designer is ‘God’; from a philosophical approach it does not quibble about whether or not the supernatural is involved. It is also different from the cosmological arguments of philosophy. Instead it squares off entirely on the grounds of design factors as seen through natural laws and other arguments such as specified complexity, irreducible complexity, etc.
It is interesting how the examples you give as proponents of I.D. are AIG (Ham), ICR, & Hovind (who is currently in jail for tax evasion). The main group of scientists that identify themselves with ID is associated with the Discovery Institute. These guys you mentioned call themselves creationists. While they enjoy the fruit of ID, they do not speak for ID or at their conferences. Their research is not included on the Discovery Institute’s web sight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
AO: “Excuse me, of the trillion+ planets in the Universe, to think that it’s ALL for us the height of arrogance and ignorance. For 1, there is no reason a god would create 99.99…% of the rest of the Universe if the Universe was all for us, it shows a total lack of design that was made expressively for us.”
Actually, evidence has revealed the importance of the stars and planets in the universe as a vital component to our solar system. You should familiarize yourself with astronomer Hugh Ross’ research on the subject. It is not arrogant at all. It is arrogant however for you to make assertions that are incomplete. As an evolutionist, you should be a little more humble in this regard since the constant assertion to creationists is, we don’t have all of the info yet.
Idontfeelsofine: “Chris333 – ‘. . . rather I am proposing that it is at least logical if not rational to believe that God may be behind the universe.’ Actually that statement is false. That is one thing that bothers me about modern apologetics. It really boils down to faith. I have faith in God - I don't claim that it is rational or logical - that is part of what faith is all about. Its about believing when you don't have proof. Modern apologists take all the beauty and wonder out of faith.”
Sounds like you are linked to the Jesus Seminar. There is not a single Christian denomination that I know of that adheres to such a thing as ‘blind faith’, faith without reason, unrational or without proper evidence. Although you are not alone in this mindset, you are for all practical purposes.
Chris333 - ". . . rather I am proposing that it is at least logical if not rational to believe that God may be behind the universe." Actually that statement is false. That is one thing that bothers me about modern apologetics. It really boils down to faith. I have faith in God - I don't claim that it is rational or logical - that is part of what faith is all about. Its about believing when you don't have proof. Modern apologists take all the beauty and wonder out of faith.
Well agentorange,
I enjoyed this comment of yours, it seemed tactful and purposeful. Still I would argue with your conclusion that scientists can indeed explain why "the sun shines". We can say how, because gravity forces the atoms of hydrogen into fusing to become helium. But why do we have such a system? Why does gravity and hydrogen behave in this way? Science rightly says "We don't know, it just is and we explain what it is doing" Physical scientists by in large admit that the fundamental laws (such as gravity) are not necessary, they could have been different depending how the 'Big Bang' began. Science doesn't attempt to explain why these laws are the way they are, or why there is a universe as opposed to nothing, or why we are sitting here thinking about it, they just say how we do it. Which is fine, I am all for that.
Nonetheless, I would have to ask you and Bob this. Let's just throw out all commen sense and say that God did indeed create the universe. What then? Why does science have to exclude this possibility? God isn't a magician (at least not according to Christianity) rather He would be vastly more complex than the entire universe. He wouldn't be 'conjuring' the universe into existence.
Also, I find evolution to be unfalsifiable. At the current time it appears that the chances of life coming about randomly are 0%, yet Dawkins still believes it to be true. Maybe someday the chances will go into the negatives, but how can you say something is falsifiable, if reason tells us that it is logically impossible? I am not proposing 'goddidit' or 'god of the gaps' rather I am proposing that it is at least logical if not rational to believe that God may be behind the universe. I don't think either of you have given a good response to this, other than that it is silly, which is pure subjectivity.
Finally, it does not seem that a universe could even exist the size of our solar system, let alone function. From our perspective this entire universe is necessary for the existence of our life. I am not asking what God could have done, I am asking you to use the knowledge we have and create a better universe (yet scientifically possible).
Chris333 - Some scientists let evolution support atheism because people like you are so adamant that evolution does support that. By and large, its not the atheists that make that claim, it's the Christians and you seem to be one of them.
Chris333 - In your analogy, you mention flipping a coin as if it was only one coin that was being flipped (in other words only one molecule searching for one molecule). To use your analogy, the number of coins being flipped was an extraordinarily large number. It wasn't just one chance, it was billions upon billions of chances over the course of several billion years. The odds don't seem quite so astounding when you look at it that way.
"ID proponents suggest that science is not able to say whether it was 'God' or aliens or chance+time, they say that it is up to the observer to draw those conclusions, not scientists."
The professional liars at the Discovery Institute say it doesn't matter who the designer is because they know admitting the designer is god makes their childish ideas non-scientific. Everyone knows the designer is god and everyone knows ID was invented to disguise god-did-it to look like science.
So we have two problems with ID creationists. They are liars and they are wrong about everything. It's for a good reason scientists laugh at them.
Ask me what I think liars deserve, especially liars who spread lies about science. I compare the Discovery Institute and all other intelligent design creationist liars to Muslim terrorists. The terrorists destroy buildings, the ID liars destroy minds, both groups deserve prison or worse.
Intelligent Design equals stupidity and dishonesty. Americans need to grow up and stop pretending their magic man is necessary for anything. This is the 21st Century and half our country is still living in the 11th Century.
“But surely science cannot tell me what whether abortion is right or wrong?”
Well, it depends how one looks at it Chris. If we consider aborting a human zygote that has less cells than a Fly does (no I am not joking), then I think we’re not looking at what it means to be human in the first place and have gone too far. I think science can determine when the fetus is responsive to pain, suffering and cognizant of actions around it by knowing when brain development occurs. It won’t tell use ethically if it’s ok or not that is for us to decide based on evidence, but it will remove ignorance and shine light on details for how we define a human as human.
“Also, science can explain how the universe works, but surely you do not believe it can explain why?’
I think you should give Science some time, in its modern state it’s only been around for 300 years or so, so we’re just beginning. Perhaps with Science we will know why the Universe works in the manner it does. String theory, if it holds up could be the answer for unification which will no doubt answer many why questions regarding the Universe. Part of answering how questions directly stem from why questions. Like ‘why does the sun shine’. Well, we know why and how it shines b/c it’s a giant mass of Hydrogen that fuses 4 hydrogen atoms into one Helium atom. ‘Why’, b/c that is the nature of the chemicals as they are forced under gravity to fuse. To posit that ‘god makes it shiny’ doesn’t really answer anything either, and this isn’t a disrespect to the notion of god either, it’s just the facts. Saying ‘the sun is shiny b/c god made it that way’ doesn’t answer anything in return either, in fact it’s an intellectual dead end.
This is why in science when something is discovered that is confounding they never leap to that resolution as it answers nothing.
Answers to such why questions as you posed are generally those found only in Philosophy or religious doctrine, but our doctrines have failed us when it comes to answering the nature of our Universe and in turn have lost their authority on the matter. They persist only b/c those questions they ponder are those we’ve yet not fully understand and haven’t concluded an answer for.
“Nonetheless God is not related to magic.”
Yes, it is. The manner in which Theists claim god works is akin to magic. With ID and complex biological systems they posit that only a ID/god could have whipped it all together. How did HE whip it up? Well, it’s impossible to know as we can’t falsify a supernatural always actively present agent that can negate our tests from the get go!
This is why supernatural agents can’t even be assumed in the scientific method and this is why ID isn’t science. Your ant analogy is solution ID proposes, that ‘ beyond our comprehension a god (or joe if you will) is responsible. But the ants can’t prove or disprove joe and according to the ants joe can do anything in a whim.
IID infers magic, or more to the point magic man, to explain away current confounding issues. Issues that we YET don't fully understand and assumes no one will ever understand and in place hammers god into the gaps of ignorance.
“ID proponents suggest that science is not able to say whether it was "God" or aliens or chance+time, they say that it is up to the observer to draw those conclusions”
Lie, Dembski even refers to Intelligent Designer as god, read his books. If we can’t falsify what is responsible for something then by that very definition it’s not science. This is why in the Dover Trial when asked Behe agreed that under his assumptions Astrology would be considered Science. Surely you see the problem there.
Watch the PBS vid, and PBS was quite kind to the ID crowd for not mentioning that most of the ID folk didn’t appear in court in a last minute ditch effort, nor does it mention they lied under oath.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=O-eVrZUaSs0
NOVA Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. 1-12
Proof that Intelligent Design is Creationism
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qt6oBxZmOG0
“Of course it takes only one try. I mean you aren't going to have the enzymes stay together until the next try?”
In Hoyles calculation organics get ONE chance and ONLY ONE to get it right. In other words, it doesn’t include multiple consecutive tries, nor does it include the time that the earth was around in which these tries could be attempted (a billion years). However, currently scientists don’t think DNA was the original structure either, so even that calculation based on it is further wrong. Rather, they think that RNA (which is far less complex was first), which is made up of Polynucleotide’s, which themselves are made of Nucleotides which are essentially regular organic molecules. We’ve already shown in labs that Nucleotides can form under their own chemical bonds quite naturally.
The ‘probability per try’ would be the same, but recall it’s not DNA, but only Nucleotides that appeared first. Also molecules MUST have a stable state and they certainly would have been stable as non organic matter prior to life. Hoyles calculation doesn’t account of this either as he looks it the required molecules for them all to arise by sheer single chance, in which he disregards the chemical bonds that molecules naturally have already.
“think of a scientific way for life to be possible given the universe was the size of our solar
system?“
Well, I was placating to ‘the god dun it’ answer as this is what theists think and in which god could have easily created just a single Solar system for us and not bothered with the other 99.99….% of the Universe that logically makes no sense. Yes, we get our energy from our Sun and that’s all we need, so scientifically and logically, if your god does work in the ways he’s able that would have sufficed, but we don’t see that so theists have some explaining to do.
Again, please explain the other 99.99…% that has no meaning for a god to bother with if we are the sole purpose.
“provide me with a peer-reviewed article that was "shot down" as you propose.”
No, I said the creationists normally don’t even submit their articles for review, thus most aren’t backed by peer review and don’t conform to what evidence really suggests. In other words, they are hearsay articles with very little credibility at all and yet creationists lap them up as if they had real weight. Go to AIG, ICR, and others and you’ll see virtually none of their work is peer reviewed. I never said ID wasn’t ever published under review either, but ID isn’t science.
www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1163
One more thing though Bob, ID proponents suggest that science is not able to say whether it was "God" or aliens or chance+time, they say that it is up to the observer to draw those conclusions, not scientists. So it is a bit unfair. Besides that, the vocal evolutionists find no problem with letting evolution theory support atheism. Again unfair. You expect the scientific community to not discuss God, but then accuse the ID community of not discussing God, as if it is deceptive. I'd say this is a double standard.
Well Bob,
I agree that the logical conclusion of ID is that God is behind life. I mean even if you say something like life came from extraterrestrials (as Francis Crick did after he discovered the form of DNA and concluded it was too detailed to be the product of randomness) then you just beg the question. Nonetheless God is not related to magic.
Let's suppose we were intelligent ants. And we realized that some outside gigantic force was wreaking havic on our ant hill (the outside force is Joe, who is smashing it with his foot) Since we do not have the tools to study Joe, and he is much bigger than ourselves. I say this must be some external force that is beyond our comprehension, and you say that I am silly and that I am "invoking magic" to explain something that only ought to require our ant-like understanding of the world.
Okay, so the example isn't the greatest, but still in the ant illustration which of us would be right? This is a possibility.
Finally, I am pretty sure you do not believe that science can answer all of our problems. Darwin made a good point, which was that just because science cannot explain some natural phenomena right now, doesn't mean that science will not discover the answer in the future. But surely science cannot tell me what whether abortion is right or wrong? Or whether the meaning of life is to accumulate the most wealth at the expense others? Also, science can explain how the universe works, but surely you do not believe it can explain why? These questions are forever beyond science's grasp. This is a deficiency in science, not in its ability to describe things, but in its ability to interpret things.
Well agentorange,
You said, "To anyone who hasn't already noticed, the main problem with this calculation is that it assumes spontanious generation via all 2000 molecules being in the exact location in only 1, reapeat ONE try. "
I am no scientist, but I think I can answer your question without a phd. Of course it takes only one try. I mean you aren't going to have the enzymes stay together until the next try? It isn't a work in progress. But the probability for each "try" would be the same. In otherwords if I flip a coin what is the chances of it being heads? 50%. Now if I flip the coin 9 times and it is tails every time, and I am about to do it on the 10th try, what is the chance I will get a heads? 50%. So the chances according to hoyle, are mathematically 0 for each try, even if you do 500,000,000 tries and it is no go each time, then the probability for the 500,000,001th time will still be 0%. (there are some arguments against Hoyle's calculations, but they aren't very convincing)
Also, you didn't answer my question, I asked you if you could think of a scientific way for life to be possible given the universe was the size of our solar system?
Christians do not say that this universe is all for us, they say that this universe (us included) is all for God, and no universe is too big for God. Your assumption is misleading.
I mentioned Behe, because his article was not supposed to get peer reviewed and a good man lost his job at the Smithsonian, simply because he ALLOWED the article to be peer reviewed. Don't think of it like a "bias" but more like a monopoly. Finally, I would ask you to provide me with a peer-reviewed article that was "shot down" as you propose.
Agentorange, I am not proposing a "god of the gaps" or "goddidit" theory. Nobody is.
Chris333 said to agentorange: "You just keep repeating that ID proponents are ignorant, as if saying it will make it happen."
I would call ID proponents dishonest. They don't want to talk about the obvious fact the designer is a god because they know invoking a god is not scientific. ID is nothing more than a form of god-did-it creationism disguised to look like science. Of course everyone, the scientists and even the creationists, know ID is just a religious belief, even though some creationists refuse to admit it.
I could never respect dishonesty, but even if intelligent design creationists were honest about what ID is, I still couldn't respect their ideas. Intelligent Design requires a god, and invoking god equals invoking magic. The idea that magic is a valid alternative to the scientific explanation for the diversity of life can only be called insanity. To anyone who claims science can't explain everything about life, I suggest they read and understand this quote:
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
-- Charles Darwin
No one denies these odds, however the calculation itself is ONLY assuming a SINGLE OCCURANCE by which ALL 2000 molecules 'by chance', to locate themselves in PERFECT order, that's why it's bogus.
Well, if YOU'RE going to posit god did it in all instances, and he can *poof* things at his command, I certainly don't see why it's outside of his power to create a sigle solar system. This is why I proposed it to you, as it woud it suffice and be most logical.
However, it didn't happen that way and like I said, the other 99.99....% of the Universe shouldn't logically therefore be here if we're the sole purpose. So explain away why the 99.99..% even exists at all.
"just because this universe is "big" doesn't mean that earth is unimportant, or that human life is unimportant"
No, but it certainly doesn't mean 'it's ALL for us, that it doesn't mean. Only an arrgaont person would think that. That was my point to begin with and not that life wasn't important, b/c it certainly is.
"you know this argument has no meaning"
Ugggh, we are ONE planet in over trillion planets, to consider it ALL for us is beyond ignorance. See the logic problem there?
They are certainly not bias, most of them are Christians after all and they follow their critiques on what gets published under review based on what evidences suggests and what is empirically proven.
The articles that creationists DO submit almost always don’t pass scientific peer review, as they don’t fit with what evidence suggests and that is why they aren’t accredited as ‘peer reviewed’. They don’t shoot down all dissention or contrary work, as evidence by Behe’s work.
Most creationist articles aren’t ever submitted for review as they know they won’t pass review as their work leaves out evidenc, or instantly resort to 'god did it, or made it that way' unfalsifiable nonsense..
"Sir Fred Hoyle siad that the chance is one in 10 to the 40,000 power. (That is that 2000 enzyme molecules will be formed simultaneously from their twenty component amino acids on a SINGLE SPECIFIED OCCASION)."
To anyone who hasn't already noticed, the main problem with this calculation is that it assumes spontanious generation via all 2000 molecules being in the exact location in only 1, reapeat ONE try.
When one considers the complex arrangement of non organic matter, it equally is so complex that according to Hoyles own calculation used here for a single instance occasion, it too wouldn't have ever occured in a single try.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=p3nvH6gfrTc
Chris333, thanks for the repy. I've got to get to work now ,t's nearly 7 in the UK,it will give me though something to mull over during the day!! Regards, Steve
Agentorange, your comment on my comment on your comment about Gen's "what good is evidence for" comment is once again falling in the same problem as before, you need to look at context. If you did, then you would have realized that I said to look at the context Gen wrote it in at first, and then you would realize that your comment was out of place. Please, don't make me repeat it again...
Also, could you scientifically suppose a "one solar system" universe where life is possible? If not then at least from our perspective this universe is indeed necessary. (Please don't say you can) For that matter, just because this universe is "big" doesn't mean that earth is unimportant, or that human life is unimportant. You cannot honestly apply this to other parts of your life, why would you do it here? You do not say that you are more important than another person because you are bigger than them? Or that America is more important than Australia because America is "bigger" you know this argument has no meaning. We are just looking at the same event from a different perspective.
Agentorange, you have to have "peers" who are willing to unbias-ly review the article before it can be peer reviewed, duh! Who are you kidding... Just like your reasoning the scientific community is guilty of circular logic. They say, "We won't review your articles because we are too important for that," and then they turn around and say, "OH your studies are not even peer-reviewed, how silly, how laughable" Look at the case of the Smithsonian where Michael Behe's article actually got through. I am not a science major, but I can see simple logic. I hear a lot of rhetoric and mudslinging from you agentorange, but very little, if any dealing with issues. You just keep repeating that ID proponents are ignorant, as if saying it will make it happen.
Steve,
I liked your question! You can probably find it somewhere on the internet, but my source came from several sources who give different illustrations, Kofahl and Segraves said:
"The probability of finding two of the active molecules would be about 10 to the 22nd power, and the probability that they would be identical would be 10 to the 70th. An could life start with just a single enzyme molecule? Furthermore, what is the possibility that an active enzyme molecule, once formed, could find its way through the thousands of miles and millions of years to that randomly formed RNA or DNA molecule which contains the code for that particular enzyme molecule's amino acid sequence, so that new copies of itself could be produced? Zero for all practical purposes."
Sir Fred Hoyle siad that the chance is one in 10 to the 40,000 power. (That is that 2000 enzyme molecules will be formed simultaneously from their twenty component amino acids on a single specified occasion).
Still, the most interesting thing that makes me take these arguments much more seriously, is the fact that Dawkins (the atheist's spokesperson by an large) doesn't even deny these odds. He just says that given enough time it will happen (he wasn't referring to these specific calculations but that of another who said that the likelyhood is comparable to a bunch of monkeys typing on a computer and randomly coming up with Shakespear)! What is this?
BobCu, I remember Bobby Fischer's accomplishments, but I'm sure the vast majority of people these days do not recognize his name; he was out of the limelight for so long. The way he ended his career was strange indeed.
The third request was for the institute to present material that show research activities underway and show them to be “based on solid scientific research."
I look forward to seeing their solid scientific research for the magical creation of everything. I'm wondering how they research magic. This whole thing is a joke. It's disgraceful the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is even considering letting the Institute for Creation Research offer an online master's degree in Science Education. These people think the entire universe is 6,000 years old. Every scientist in the world laughs at them, and now they're laughing at Texas.
“It is not arrogant or ignorant to be inclined to believe that this universe is just for us, even from a scientific perspective. “
Excuse me, of the trillion+ planets in the Universe, to think that it’s ALL for us the height of arrogance and ignorance. For 1, there is no reason a god would create 99.99…% of the rest of the Universe if the Universe was all for us, it shows a total lack of design that was made expressively for us. You can argue that the nearest stars are important for navigation; however these are only in our own galaxy, so even by that assumption the rest of the galaxies shouldn’t logically be around if it’s all for us.
If WE are the sole reason for the Universe, a single solar system would suffice. But noooo, that’s not good enough, we the Universe needed about 500 Billion other planetary systems in our own galaxy alone! And on top of that 500 Billion OTHER galaxies in the Universe. I am sorry, but this shows it most certainly wasn’t made with us in mind. All of the planetary systems are so far away that visiting all but the closest are literally impossible and too many reasons to mention.
Also put into perspective that our own galaxy is on one way collision course with the Andromeda galaxy. Great Design ALL for US! What arrogance.
Put that into perspective and think about it critically.
“As long as you can scream that we are nothing, you will be able to take false security in meaninglessness.”
No, I am just shedding some light on how utterly small and literally meaningless our planet is in the abstract and big scheme of things. Anyone who ignores that can make such arrogant claims as it’s ‘all for us’ and think it’s logical.
“Also your comment on Gen's "What does the evidence matter for" was ridiculous”
Why is it ridiculous? It’s the truth, EVIDENCE MEANS EVERYTHING! Anyone who gloats that evidence is of little meaning is bordering the intelligent of Homer Simpson.
"The chances of life happening in this universe, on this planet, are believed to be mathematically zero. Not even Dawkins will deny this"
Your sure about that? No, actually you're wrong. Dawkins says only that life that is capable of high levels of Intelligence (ike us) is relatively rare. I wouldn't take Dawkins as the lone word, (he is an Biologist after all) you'd be better off listening to an Astrophysicist like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Astronomers, Cosmologists and Physicists.
Howerver, microbial life even in our own Milky Way galaxy is, based on the sheer volume of possible planets to be fair and certainly not impossible. of the 64+ moons of Jupiter, a few show signs of of possible liquid H20, and where there is liquid H20 the odds for life dramitcally go waaay up.
Chris333,
"peer reviewed articles of the ID side do not exist because the "scientific community" will not allow them."
Will not allow them? Ha- that's hilarious!
AIG, ICR, Hovind, Ham and numerous other YEC/ID and regular creationist articels are NEVER published under the association of the National Science Board/Association b/c they are NEVER critiqued under peer review to begin with! Duh
To be published and credited as being credible and to ensure accuracy ALL articles in ALL realms of Science MUST undergo peer review in which members of various arenas of Science equally evaluate, critique and establish if said articles are worthy of being published.
This ensures that only properly accurate work is published and therefore ensures that we a the consumsers are getting facts and not hearsay opinons that lack evidence.
Those that pass the test are pubished under a 'peer reviewed status', those that aren't are discarded or left to appeal for future review. This however doesn't mean that people can't publish non-peer reviewed work and have it read by others, take a look at AIG, ICR and the the like for their non-peer reviewed work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
maranatha7593: "To say that Bobby Fischer was a 'strange character' is actually something of an understatement."
I agree. He had serious problems, but his problems were nothing compared to his accomplishments. His victory in the 1972 World Chess Championship was a victory for America in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. His chess games are the best in chess history and will be studied for thousands of years. As a chess player who has been studying the game for 47 years, I have learned more from Fischer than all other grandmasters combined. For that I am very grateful to Fischer and I'm willing to overlook his faults no matter how bad they were.
Off-Topic: To say that Bobby Fischer was a 'strange character' is actually something of an understatement. He had exhibited bizarre behavior for at least a couple of decades. It was very sad to see such an obviously intelligent man disintegrate mentally as he did.
Hi Chris333 ,your comment
"The chances of life happening in this universe, on this planet, are believed to be mathematically zero"
Interested me I'd like to get hold of the oringinal quote concerning the maths on this etc..could you post the links or referances..Many thanks, Steve
"Why were you avoiding my resonse and relegating the challenge to AgentOrnery on the other post?"
agentorange has a lot more patience than me, and he's much more knowledgeable than I am, so, yeah, I appreciate when he responds to your comments instead of me.
seedplanter: "evolutionary social construct of theism"
The problem is I never know what you're talking about. Evolution says nothing about theism or atheism or social constructs, whatever that is. It's just a scientific fact like gravity. I think you make it into much more than it is.
BobCoup d'état: “…of course a god's fingers didn't have anything to do with it. I suppose some people like the idea there's a supernatural magician…”
Correction: Some people like the idea of spontaneous generated magic, while others prefer logic. Your inference to the natural is unwarranted considering you have no theoretical means to demonstrate it naturally.
You cannot put God in a test tube. The evidence for design is in the purposeful arrangements of the parts.
Bob, it is sad to see you still working against the theory that you so enjoy promoting by resisting the evolutionary social construct of theism. You should consider pantheism, deism or something more hospitable.
These are the last days for methodological natural evolution. It is only a matter of time when scientific enquiry will win.
BobCoup d'état,
Why were you avoiding my resonse and relegating the challenge to AgentOrnery on the other post?
Agentorange,
peer reviewed articles of the ID side do not exist because the "scientific community" will not allow them.
The chances of life happening in this universe, on this planet, are believed to be mathematically zero. Not even Dawkins will deny this. It is not arrogant or ignorant to be inclined to believe that this universe is just for us, even from a scientific perspective. But that would crash your world, then you would actually have to start thinking of the meaning and life, and what is right and wrong. As long as you can scream that we are nothing, you will be able to take false security in meaninglessness.
Also your comment on Gen's "What does the evidence matter for" was ridiculous, you didn't even bother what he said after that. You need to look at context, not just pick words you like, attribute to them what you want them to mean, and then knock them down as if you did something. It is very poor debating, and only convinces people who aren't smart enough to look at the whole comment.
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Checkmate!
"When I gaze into the night sky and see the works of your fingers, what is man that you are mindful of him?"
theotrek, that's a beautiful statement, but of course a god's fingers didn't have anything to do with it. I suppose some people like the idea there's a supernatural magician who thinks people are a big deal, and not just one of many animal species on a speck of almost nothing in the middle of nowhere, but I prefer reality. Some day all life will be extinct on this tiny planet, and nobody else in the universe will notice, and nobody will care.
A great man died yesterday. Bobby Fischer from Brooklyn, chess champion of the world in 1972, and best chess player in history, dead at age 64, in Iceland. He was a strange character but his brilliant chess games will studied for thousands of years. I'm a chess nut and I learned a lot from Fischer. He was not a quitter. He never played for a draw like other grandmasters. He always tried to win every game he played and he usually did win every game.
BobCu--
Interesting that one of the Psalms make the same statement "When I gaze into the night sky and see the works of your fingers, what is man that you are mindful of him?"
agentorange: "Some 500 billion+ Galaxies, each galaxy consisting of some 500 billion stars (at least) and then some trillon + planets orbiting them, stretched across countless billions of light years. Anyone that can assert it was all for us is mighty ignorant and equally arrogant."
I agree and thanks for the Hubble video.
Gen1_28: "... I can waste no more time on this post."
No! Please don't go away. Us EVILutionists would die of boredom without you.
Gen1_28: "Would it also be arrogant? How so? I am stating that an all powerful God has done something for his own glory. How does that make ME arrogant?"
You ask good questions Gen1_28.
The arrogant people agentorange was talking about are the people who think their species and their planet are such a big deal that God would select them and only them for special treatment, even sending his Son, Mr. Christ, to get executed for our sins, whatever a sin is.
People who really understand how insignificant our species is, and how insignificant our planet is, are not likely to believe a god would select earth for anything.
Imagine our entire solar system disappearing in one second. That would be like one grain of sand disappearing from the Sahara Desert. That's how vast the universe really is, and that's how insignificant we are.
"When you say "peer reviewed" who SPECIFICALLY are you referring to? Other scientist?"
Yes other scientists, but more specifically those that are part of the national science association tha determine what is credible and what isn't via peer review.
"Because those sites you mentioned are peer reviewed... It's just Evolutionists don't like to look at it."
Wow...just wow. No, the articles of those sites you mentioned use don't undergo scientific peer review to validate their accuracy and authority on what they claim. Many times they site the bible as a means to explain away counfounding evidence. (human chromosome 2 fusion would be such a case) Is it any wonder they aren't highly accredited like nature.com articles are?
"But what does the evidence matter for?"
Dumbest rhetorical question of the day right there! Ya, you're right Gen, evidence is totally overated. NOT! Evidence and how credible it is, is everything!
"But why would it be IGNORANT? .....Would it also be arrogant?"
Yes sir it would be considering earth is one of some trillion+ planets in the Universe. It's the height of arrogance and ignorance to assume the WHOLE Universer was made expressly for us. To assume that god created it all for littlle ol us, is beyond ignorance. No words could describe such ignorance on such dumb an assumption.
"How does that make ME arrogant?"
Well, if you're like most creationists that assume it's all for us, then yes it makes you equally as arrogant.
"It would be ignorant claiming to know the meaning of the universe. Which you just did."
Quite putting words in my mouth, I never said any such thing. I never implied this that and that are the meanings of life. Nice try.
I appologize- but I can waste no more time on this post.
May God give you understanding.
When you say "peer reviewed" who SPECIFICALLY are you referring to? Other scientist? Because those sites you mentioned are peer reviewed... It's just Evolutionists don't like to look at it.
But what does the evidence matter for?
We all have the same evidence. What matters is how we interpret that evidence. And our interpretations are based on presuppositions.
And yes- I think all creation is vast as so displays the greatness of God.
You said"Anyone that can assert it was all for us is mighty ignorant and equally arrogant. " But why would it be IGNORANT? Ignorance means a lack of knowledge, which wouldtherefore lead any logical person to believe you are presuming to know the meaning of creation. Okay- what is the meaning of life then?
Would it also be arrogant? How so? I am stating that an all powerful God has done something for his own glory. How does that make ME arrogant?
It would be arrogant if I thought this was all for me. I don't. It would be ignorant claiming to know the meaning of the universe. Which you just did.
Furthermore, what is wrong with arrogance and ignorance in the evolutionary worldview? In Evolution, there is no such thing as a standard for morality.
Agent-
I have clarified... but for you, i will do so again.
I do not believe, nor was it ever my understanding that evolutionist believe that a full human springs from the womb fo an ape. I was using an unrefined example, which I clearly stated to be an unrefined example at the time of original usage. Is that part clear enough for you?
Gen,
"I have given evidence. The problem is that like most evolutionists- you claim anything that comes from a creationist is not evidence."
Show us the scientifically peer reviewed and published articles that back up your biblical claims. random sites like AIG and ICR or dr.dino won't cut it as they don't publish their work for scientific peer review and so they aren't critiqued or validated for accuracy and therefor they lack actualy credible authority.
What part of that do you not understand?
""peer reviewed Creation material".
Where? it doesn't exist. We've asked for it how many times now and oyou still haven't sited one piece of reviewed work. No creationists publish their work for scientific peer review b/c they know it wont pass as it's bogus.
BobCu,
I hope you're right, but I'll let him clarify for himself. He wont, he can't accept a Universe that is so large and vast that it would negate any concept of it all being created for little ol us humans.
But just so he can get an idea of what Hubble has actually revealed, take a look first hand here.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fgg2tpUVbXQ
Some 500 billion+ Galaxies, each galaxy consisting of some 500 billion stars (at least) and then some trillon + planets orbiting them, stretched across countless billions of light years. Anyone that can assert it was all for us is mighty ignorant and equally arrogant.
Didy-
I have given evidence. The problem is that like most evolutionists- you claim anything that comes from a creationist is not evidence.
Your questions were not foundational. A foundational quesiton is absed on a presuppositional level. You questions dealt with "facts" and "peer reviewed material". Again- Facts are due to interpretation on a presuppositional basis and I have directed you towards others who might better answer your questions on "peer reviewed Creation material".
agentorange, I rarely defend creationists but I don't think Gen1_28 meant to imply a non-human ape gave birth to a human ape. He denies evolution but I think he has a fairly good understanding of what evolution is. Of course it's likely he has a lot of misconceptions about it, but I don't think the idea an ape could have a human baby is one of his misconceptions.
Hello Gen1_28.
Please continue to believe all the trillions of stars appeared a few thousand years ago. I can think of no better advertisement for atheism. Most definitely the best friends of atheism are the young earth creationists. Their total rejection of scientific discoveries from many different branches of science is the best possible way to convince young people to throw out their religious indoctrination. So please keep up the good work.
By the way, did you know the universe is so vast the light from millions of stars has not reached the earth yet?
Also, scientists using the Hubble telescope have discovered galaxies as they appeared billions of years ago because that's how long it took for their light to reach earth.
Isn't it interesting that a god chose our small planet in the middle of nowhere in an unimaginably vast universe for all this special treatment? It's funny how many people think their planet is such a big deal when it's really just a speck of almost nothing.
Gen1_28,
I don't need to quote you entirely as it would use up most of the space for my repy (duh). A short quote of your central point is what is prefered in this type of dialog as to do otherwise isn't very productive.
Regardless, you misrepresented how evolution is suggested to work and thought that it implies that an ape, modern or primitive would in a single generation give birth to a fully formed H. Sapien.
This isn't what Evolutinon theory suggets for evoluton at or above the species level at all. Rather it suggests existing organisms which are highly genetically similar should have a common ancestor that should be identifiable according to the fossil record. with H. Sapiens we do find numerous species that weren't ape, nor were they 100% modern H.Sapien either. Habillis, Erectus, Ergaster, Heidelbergensis, Neanderthalensis, Florensis. non of these were modern H. Sapiens and clearly not apes either. how can you reconcile these?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
Gen1_28,
You said, “Hope this answers your questions.”
No, it doesn’t. I didn’t ask for “some info on Creation science”. I asked for peer-review article references so I can go and look them up. A huge difference. You’ve been philosophizing a lot here, but presenting no evidence.
I’ve asked some basic foundational questions, simple ones, but your answers have been cut-in-half links, and petty like, “take an English class”. Come on, why don’t you go get some better answers, some real answers. After all, you’re the wise one here, and I am just a puny brained theistic evolutionist, remember.
Agent-
You seem to be a little thick- so plainly- I clearly stated that my analagy was unrefined and never intended for you, nor any intelligent person, to understand that my thinking was that an ape gave birth to a hom sapian.
I will try to use smaller words next time.
Agent-
Obviously you don't understand what it means to "take someone out of context". It means to misquote them in a manner in which their original meaning was not intended.
Reread that post and try again, referencing the direct point I made of a crude analagy.
"Again you take me out of context. What is this, the fourth time? Please reread that last post and try to get it right next time"
I am not taking you out of context, you don't even know what Evolution suggests, thats all I pointed out.
Didy-
I don't have time to pursue that article. You just asked for some info on Creation science and I pointed you the right direction.
There is no verse that talks about literal interpretaion in the form you are requesting. The Bible talks in principles, not specifics to the extent as you desribe. I do not have the time to discuss here the finer points of Biblical interpretation. Take a good english class and you should get most of it correct. When it says "days" it usually means "days" and when it says "animal" it sually means animal. Like all languages, the Bible sometimes uses metaphorres and similies. Those can trip some people up.
Hope this answers your questions.
Agent-
Again you take me out of context. What is this, the fourth time? Please reread that last post and try to get it right next time.
Bob-
You point out rightly that we both have a "mountain of evidnce".
Yes I believe the flood is the most likely cause of the Grand Canyon... perhaps you have heard of the "mini Grand Canyon"? It has some nice corrolations. Also recall that the Bible says the Flood took a whole year. It rained for 40 days and the earth was covered with water for about 1 year. One year of flooding is a long time and can do MUCH damage.
Do you also recall that there is something like 200 recollections of a "Global flood" in the histories of people from around the world?
Gen1_28,
“When has anyone seen an ape turn into a human to see if this same idea works between species? No one has. It is presummed on the basis of evolutionary presuppositions.”
MAJOR FAIL!
Evolution never, I repeat NEVER states that one organism in a SINGLE GENERATION will give birth to a brand new species of organism. Evolutionary theory never suggests that a modern ape, a primitive ape will in one single generation pop out a fully formed and modern H. Sapien. That it certainly doesn’t suggest. No wonder you doubt it. Evolution at or above the species level is relatively slow and gradual over the long term.
Evolution suggests rather that existing members that are genetically very similar, if not identical, should share common ancestors, so when we look for fossils we should find some intermediate species that led from primitive apes onward to us. This we do find. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
Please refer to links and articles at bottom of that site as well for further evidence.
Clearly many of those hominids before modern H.Sapiens weren’t fully modern humans, nor were they apes either’s.
Gen1_28,
I’ll read that article I mentioned, and I’m sure I’ll have a few questions for you later.
But I’m not interested in just surfing the websites to read a little of the glossy literature. I’m interested in peer-reviewed articles. I’d like to read the abstracts at least, and dip into the article itself. I’d like to know who are the peer reviewers, and look them up.
Your point about “science groups” not wanting to look at creationism, and the “facts”, and therefore don’t get published, doesn’t really cut it for me. Peer review is all about fact checking, and you can always publish in another journal.
Hmm… which gets me to a question I can ask now. What do you think of the article I'm reading from ARJ - “Microbes and the Days of Creation”, by Alan Gillen? Published 2008. Would you say this article is an example of cutting edge creation research in microbiology?
Here’s the link to the article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/microbes-days-of-creation
BTW, can one exposit truth by using fiction? And where is it written that we must take the Bible literally (chapter and verse, please)? Thanks.
Gen1_28,
”To contend that an artist painted a painting is not illogical. please read some books on logic.”
Uhhg. Actually YEC use this very premise according to their view that provide evidence that god exists.
They will say this in reference to living organisms and say that for a painting to exist, there had to be a painter.
However, they neglect to realize that paintings are inanimate objects, while living organisms aren’t. paintings don’t undergo natural selection as organic life does, so the two aren’t truly analogous.
"First, you take me out of context. I never said 6000 is like 13 billion."
No, I understood your point. you on one hand wanted to point out that the bible was fairly accurate on the PI of a circle, but you didn't bother to point out all the instances where the bible got it flat wrong with regards to what science shows us. one example being the universe being 13.7 billion years old. Then you gloat that the bible is and has always been accurate in science, but that's not so. Your bible is just like the koran with regards to science, some hits and some misses. hardly a high level of accuracy to deem it as scientifically grounded.
www.godvsthebible.com
"Please learn a little bit about literary interpretation before taking things out of context. "
Oh, so you're saying those passages can't be read as literally as they are written...why not?
Why can't those be literally read and instead refered to symbolically, but the creation and noah accounts and others that must be 100% literal?
Bob-
The Bible must always be in line with science because God was the creator of science and the precondition for science.
Any Christian who believes faith in God requires us to "drop " science is completely ignorant of the Bible. The Bible says that God made all things in accordance with his divine nature and power... To put it shortly, his nature is logical and uniform, among other things. Without Him, science would not work because science depends on the uniformity of nature and etc.
Take this whole DNA marker thingy for example. The evidence shows that humans have this and that we can show how 2 humans who copulate and concieve will have a child with certain markings. The evidence shows this to be true. When has anyone seen ( I use rough and generic language) an ape turn into a human to see if this same idea works between species? No one has. It is presummed on the basis of evolutionary presuppositions. That's why I try to get this conversation back to the point that we all have the same evidence- we just interpret it differently due to our presuppositions.
Gen1_28: "Where is your evidence?"
Myself and others have already talked about the evidence for evolution on other threads of the Christian Post. The evidence for the age of the earth and universe is just as massive as the evidence for evolution. I prefer to let others here, who know more than I do, explain that evidence, but I would like to talk about the Grand Canyon.
I have talked to young earth people like you long enough to know they believe the Grand Canyon was formed in an extremely short period of time by one very big flood. They are forgetting the Grand Canyon is one mile deep. That's one mile of solid rock a flood would have had to gouge thru. Compare that to the idea of erosion from a fast flowing Colorado river for millions of years. Erosion from rivers can be seen all over the world. Even the little creek that flowed thru a town I used to live in formed a small canyon. I have seen the Grand Canyon so I know how vast it is. There is no possible way it formed in less than several million years, I don't care how big the Biblical flood was.
Agent-
First, you take me out of context. I never said 6000 is like 13 billion. I was comparing using a general number to describe a general idea. Please reread my post.
Many things have foundations, including pictures, vehicles, etc. A foundation doesn't have to be made out of rock or the like. The bible also makes reference to people being like sheep, eagles, and chickens... but no Christian who reads these things think we actually are sheep and chickens, etc.
Please learn a little bit about literary interpretation before taking things out of context.
Gen1_28,
"Some say the Universe (or whatever) is 13 billion years old. The Bible speaks of things in the same way"
What…how is it even near the same way? There is a BIG difference from 13.7 billion and 6 000 years, that’s not some approximation error.
Using your rationalizing of PI that equals 3.15 in the bible, (I thought it was 3.00 in the bible?) when compared with the real calculation of PI being 3.14 you could of said the bible wasn't quite correct if the earth wasn't 6000 years old, but was like 7000 years old. then the claim by Usher of the bible and its recording of the age of the earth would have some weight.
But not a difference from 6000 years to 13.7 Billion years, that is a margin of error so high it's embrassing.
“I have not found the Bible to be wrong on one scientific point. Infact, The Bible is known to be a very accurate book to both historians and archeologists, etc.”
What nonsense. The bible says earth rests on pillars.
Psalms 75:3 The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.
Psalms 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
The Bible says the Earth is fixed in place, too
1st Chronicles 16:30 …the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Psalms 93:1 ... the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
Psalms 96:10 ... the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved....
Gen1_28, your ideas about the age of the earth and universe are shared by millions of Americans, so it's not fair to criticize you about it. I am interested in why there so many people who agree with you. From your comments I get the idea that you and millions of other Christians think their religion requires the rejection of scientific evidence. If that's true it would be unfortunate for your religion. Young people who love science are going to be scared away from a religion that is constantly at war with scientists.
I noticed didymus didn't much care for your “everyone who claims to be a Christian must believe” idea. I'm guessing there's a lot of Christians who don't like their religion getting a bad reputation from anti-science Christians. I'm wondering, are you concerned about your religion's reputation? Or is it more important to you to trust the Bible completely than worry about what science says about anything?
Bob-
I appologize- I forgot to answer your question regarding the age of the Earth. You are correct that the Bible does not mention a specific age. However, If I said I went to the store and spent $20 on food, and $30 on clothes, and $1.75 on a soda- you don't have to be a super genius to do the math and find out I spent $51.75. The Bible gives us geneology up into about 400BC (if my rememberance is correct). And we can give a fairly accurate statement from this... which is approximately 6000 years old. I don't have the exact number- and I'm not sure it could be found out. But Does that invalidate the Biblical claim? No. To say not knowing the exact age would invalidate the claim, the same question could be posed to evolutionists with the same results... though yo uhave gone this far.
Agent-
To contend that an artist painted a painting is not illogical. please read some books on logic.
Didy-
I appologize that the links didn't show up. Please just do a little search on the net. There is plenty to read there.
Everyone believes in a god. For some, their god is evolution, others it is Allah, and others Jehova. The point is that for Christians, Christians must accept the Bible as the word of God, since it claims to be the very word of God. Any person who reads "And there was morning and evening, the first day" and thinks it means "thousands of years" or some other timeframe is gossly taking the Bible out of context.
Bob-
Yes, I believe that the bible needs to be accurate in all things, in relevance to who spoke the information and what it's relating to. For example- should the Bible be giving the words of one claiming the truth- and yet we know that truth (prophecy) never happened, then we should understand that the Bible was not claiming that it would happen. Secondly, There are somethings which we all use, such as estimated numbers. Some say the Universe (or whatever) is 13 billion years old. The Bible speaks of things in the same way. Like the Bible computes the circumfrand of a Cirlce at approxmiately 3.15 (if you do their math). Do I think this disqualifies the Bible- no. I understand that it is giving me the approximate and not the specific. Moreover- it encourages me to believe it all the more since I can better test these things mathmatically and scientifically (so to speak) and "prove" them to be correct.
I have not found the Bible to be wrong on one scientific point. Infact, The Bible is known to be a very accurate book to both historians and archeologists, etc. Most claims otherwise that I have heard are easily disproved.
Your claims of "most scientist...even religious ones" don't believe creation doesn't bother me. (1) Where is your evidence? (2) Just because most believe believe something doesn't make it true (though it might give some credability). (3) I know of thousands of scientists who believe Creation.
(Referring to Human chromosome 2 Fusion)
“Blind to alternatives"
"While the EVIDENCE FOR A FUSION APPEARS CONSISTENT WITH THE EVOLUTION MODEL, Dr. Miller implies that it is inconsistent with ID or creation models. He makes the ludicrous claim that the only way creationists can respond to this evidence is: “THAT’S THE WAY THE DESIGNER MADE IT.”4 This statement reveals Dr. Miller’s inability to think outside his paradigm. As a creationist who finds chromosomal rearrangements fascinating, I can honestly say I never thought of that possibility.
“One possibility I had considered is that humans and apes (and perhaps other animals too) were CREATED WITH THE SAME NUMBER OF CHROMOSOMES WITH SIMIALAR BANDING PATTERNS.14 Since chromosome numbers vary within created kinds, it is not in the chromosome number where we should expect the most significant differences to lie, but in the coded information.”
As Ken Miller explained in Dover, the ONLY way the ID/creationist crowd could explain such evidence is to say ‘god did it, or made it or created it that way’. As expected, AIG confirms this suggesting that god CREATED them to have similar banding patterns. I am sorry creationists, but you have to realize when you’re being lied to.
Links
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/tale-of-two-chromosomes
Gen1_28,
Just like you, you contend 'god made it that way' as an explanation. horrid logic.
you never did demonstrate the evidence for a 6000 year old universe/earth either so don't be a pentulant little kid about it..
I would like to put in a brief disclaimer here: Gen1_28’s statement that “everyone who claims to be a Christian must believe” in what is basically Young Earth Creationism is a load full of baloney.
Gen1_28,
Most of your links below are the same two repeated over several times and they are cut off so I can’t go to any specific pages. Can you give me something complete? Also, I checked out the Answers Research Journal, I’ll be reading “Microbes and the Days of Creation”, by Alan Gillen, or Liberty University.
But I’m surprised you don’t have a pre-made list of peer-reviewed articles. Ya-know, something to fling at pesky evolutionists, like orangutans fling (you know) at those who make funny faces at them in the zoo.
Hello Gen1_28. You certainly know more about the Bible than I do, but I don't remember any claims in the Bible about the age of the universe or the earth. Wasn't it some person who made that calculation after counting the generations described in the Bible?
For the record, I don't believe anything in the Bible. You probably think if the Bible is not 100% accurate about everything, then nothing in it should trusted. I agree with that idea. Because I have been studying science for a few years, I have noticed the scientific claims in the Bible are pretty much all completely wrong. There are some Christians, probably millions of Christians, who claim the Bible can be translated to accommodate scientific discoveries. I don't agree with that and I don't think you agree with that either. So I think we agree the Bible must be 100% accurate if it can be trusted at all. What we don't agree about is the massive scientific evidence that shows the earth to be more than 4 billion years old and that shows the age of the universe to be at least 3 times the age of the earth.
Does it ever concern you that hundreds of thousands of scientists, including virtually all religious scientists, totally disagree with you about your extremely young earth and universe?
Agent-
If you had half a brain, you would have seen the direct corolation I was referenceing in Bob's last post.
You want my questions- go back and read them. I'm done answering your repeatedly and not being answered in return.
Bob-
Thank you for your polite etiquette.
Yes. I am. That is what the Bible says. That is what everyone who claims to be a Christian must believe. Otherwise they call God a liar.
Gen1_28, please correct me if I'm wrong. Are you claiming the entire universe, all the trillions and trillions of stars, is only a few thousand years old instead of billions of years old? Did I understand you correctly?
Gen1_28,
“Evolutionists say the world is 13,000,000,000 years old. Do yo ureally expect an educated person to take them seriously?”
MAJOR FAIL!
SCIENTISTS (namely Cosmologists, Astronomers, Physicists) say the UNIVERSE is 13.7 Billion years old, the WORLD or EARTH they (Geologists, Physicists) say is 4.6 Billion years old. They (Biologists) say that organic life is at least 3.85 Billion years old.
Surely a YEC like yourself can distinguish between ‘universe’ and world/earth’, yes?
Secondly, these Scientists have built the very civilization that you depend on today. Surely you see the horrid logic in doubting them when your very lively hood is dependent off of it. Every piece of technology that you use is built from the work and off of SCIENCE. Have some respect for Science and its fruits.
This is why we should be grateful to what science has provided for us and not defy it. This is why you should be humble to be in an era where science can show how useful it is, this is why it must be respected and honored. Without science humanity would be living like the OT jews and be equally as ignorant. All YEC’s can do is to piss into the fountain of knowledge for sake of protecting their faith.
The very Internet you’re using right now is built from Science! I would expect any logical person who uses the luxuries and gifts bestowed to us principally from Science to be able to realize this and distinguish those that contribute something in society as being equated to truth and verifiable as opposed to some book from a period in time when humanity was largely ignorant of many things.
1000 Years of Creationist 'Achievements'
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzdv2dsPPKw
Gen1_28,
The list you gave, many if not most aren't sites that use scientifically backed peer reviewed articles. In other words they are hearsay.
"Obviously you have never read Darwins wrinting on "the ascent of man"
Actually I have, and this work is only regarding how the evolution of man is described under the evolutionarry model. No where in it does it say or infer that blacks are less human, or that whites are superior.
"I won't talk to you further iuntill you answer my previous questions. "
Which ones? I thought I answered the most critical ones. you could always re ask them like i and Bob have asked you continually for evidence of your 6000 year old univrse/earth. nothing wrong with that.
" It doesn't come down to stricktly evidence. Itcomes down to the interpretation of the evidence based on our presuppositions"
Our presupositions are based on how credible the evidence is for a given proposition in the first place. I can presuppose that balls will float if I am igonrant of how gravity works.
Just like how YEC's can presuppose that the earth/universe really is only 6000 years old if they are ignorant of much of the evidence that negates this proposition. this is why their presuposition is based on 1/2 truths at best.
regardless, this presupposition is one born of being ignorant on how gravity actually works, thus why the proposition is wrong. the proposition that doesn't conform to reality and the subsequent presuposition that the earth really is only 6000 years old is obviously the wrong one.
Bob-
Evolutionists say the world is 13,000,000,000 years old. Do yo ureally expect an educated person to take them seriously?
Hello Gen1_28.
The website Answers In Genesis which you recommended claims the entire universe is 6,000 years old instead of more than 13,000,000,000 years old. Do you really expect an educated person to take answers in genesis seriously?
Chris333: "I actually enjoy debating you ..."
Thanks very much, but I don't like this word "debating". A debate sounds like two people who are arguing about something. That's not why I'm here. I'm here to share my knowledge and hopefully learn something myself. To me this is about teaching and learning, not debating. But thanks. I also enjoy talking to you and others here.
"it works for paternity testing... it must be the same for evolutionary testing".
I said both use the same method. Understand? The same method. If the method is wrong, then both paternity testing and testing for evolutionary relationships can not be accurate. If the method is correct, and the courts trust it completely, and even the creationists trust this method completely, then the method must always work, even when it's used to test the relationship of two different species.
I suggest before you complain about it, you should study it. You don't sound too good when you make claims about something you don't want to put in the time to understand.
Why don't you google "variable markers in DNA" "evolution" "paternity testing", then get back to me. Don't be afraid about being wrong all your life. Everyone, including myself, has been wrong about lots of things. People, when they find out they're wrong, should be happy about it. This is called learning and learning is a good thing.
I remember a story about a scientist who had what he thought was a great idea about something. He spent his entire career testing and defending his idea. Then one day he listened to a speech from another scientist who explained his evidence which showed the scientist's idea was completely wrong. This scientist got out of his chair, walked up to the speaker, shook his hand and said "Thank you very much. I have been wrong all my life." The audience gave this scientist who was wrong a standing ovation.
Didymus:
Here is a list to start you with...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0822sternberg.asp
Have you tried the ARJ? Answers Research Journal? A peer reviewed technical journal.
And many of those at Answers in Genesis are Ph.D. Scientists.
Also check out http://www.halos.com/ for some interesting issue from Creationists trying to publish their work.
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientif...
http://www.creationism.org/topbar/carbon...
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientif...
http://www.creationism.org/topbar/fossil...
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientif...
http://www.creationism.org/topbar/biolog...
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientif...
http://www.creationism.org/topbar/evolut...
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...
Bob:
You said"I keep hearing this "people interpret evidence differently" nonsense...The identification of these variable markers in DNA is used for both paternity testing and to determine evolutionary relationships. If creationists accept the results of paternity testing, they have no reason to deny the evolutionary relationships which are determined using the exact same method."
Actually- our presuppositions have everything to do with how we validate our facts. Please read up on epistemology, AKA the theory of knowledge. It talks about HOW we know what we know.
You yourself made a presuppositional jump in your statement, which PREUSPPOSES evolution. You said basically "it works for paternity testing... it must be the same for evolutionary testing". This is a jump from one species to another, assuming that the two are interrelated. To come to this conclusion, you MUST presuppose evolution. There is no other way to come to your conclusion. You just don't flat out recognize this necessary precondition.
I don't have to understand every computer program to understand how to generally work computers- By understanding the general principles I can sit down and work most computers. Same goes for science. You don't have to understand and review every scientific test and study to understand other studies.
People who think "my facts are bigger than yours" have no understanding about how all people validate facts. We validate facts by filtert=ing them through presuppositions. Most people have no clue what their presuppositions are.
Didymus-
Part of the problem is that many "Science groups" don't want to look at creationism. They WILL NOT look at the facts. This has been many times documented. I will work on finding a list for you of peer reviewed stuff.
Agent-
Obviously you have never read Darwins wrinting on "the ascent of man"- nor have you read anything reagarding the motivations for Hitler. They both DIRECTLY refer to slavery and the evolutionary superhuman idea. It doesn't come down to stricktly evidence. Itcomes down to the interpretation of the evidence based on our presuppositions.
I won't talk to you further iuntill you answer my previous questions.
I keep hearing this "people interpret evidence differently" nonsense. A creationist should pick 100 biologists randomly. Hopefully at least some small percentage of those biologists would be religious. Religious biologists are rare, but I know they exist. For example, Ken Miller, who is a big promoter of the teaching of evolution, is religious. Now the creationist should ask these 100 biologists how they interpret variable markers in DNA. The creationist would find out every single one of those 100 biologists, including the religious biologists, interpret variable markers in DNA exactly the same way. They would also agree there can be only one answer. When a variable marker, which is a rare insertion event, is exactly the same in two species, and is in exactly the same place in the DNA of two species, then the ONLY possible explanation is this variable marker was inherited from a common ancestor species.
For the creationists who think the first animals of each species were magically created by mr. god, and this magician made the DNA to look similar, this does not explain the exact sameness of these variable markers in two different species which were inserted long after the magic man did his creating.
The identification of these variable markers in DNA is used for both paternity testing and to determine evolutionary relationships. If creationists accept the results of paternity testing, they have no reason to deny the evolutionary relationships which are determined using the exact same method.
Sometimes there is only one right answer. Even if one person accepts reality and the other person thinks everything is supernatural magic, there is still only one possible way to explain these variable markers in DNA.
The people who claim they interpret DNA evidence differently are the same people who know nothing about DNA and have never made any attempt to understand it.
Gen1_28,
Peer-reviewed articles, I need references. I sit just a hop away from one of the biggest private religion based universities in the nation. I’d like to go read some of these peer reviewed science articles supporting creation science. After all, you did suggest that I read not just my Bible to understand God, but also read those who understand him. Well, I’d like to read the peer-reviewed articles by creation scientists that support creation science, to help me understand God better.
So… fork them over, please. I’m sure you have a list of a whole bunch of them, so just cut and paste them to here so I can go look a few of them up the next time I go to BYU. I’m sure they will provide me with some entertaining reading.
“By the way- thatnks for agreeing with me that neither you , nor I was there... and that we both must INTERPRET the facts based on our presuppositions”
Right, so it ALL COMES DOWN TO HOW CREDIBLE THE EVIDENCE IS. What credible peer reviewed data is there for a 6000 year young earth/universe?
In science we have a system to collectively know the dates of our earth and universe, where as with any creation story, biblical or not, we have to assume that this particular book is REALLY the word of god and that it’s 100% true. Yes, even your bibles claims aren’t 100% consistent with what science shows for our universe. Pslams and other books might say the earth ‘moveth not and that it rests on pillars’, but we know that’s not the case at all.
Not a single creation book conforms to our universe and so they aren’t uniform and amongst the 3000+ to choose from and from whence the came (a time in which people were ignorant of many things) it’s clear their creation stories were an inept attempt to conjecture on which they were ignorant of. This is why we have so many creation stories to begin with.
Only by ignoring the evidence and being ignorant of the details behind Human Chromosome 2 fusion and 7 Identical ERV’s could one placate that they aren’t evidence for evolution and common ancestry.
“Human Chromosome 2 - I don't answer it- I'm no scientist- but please refer to the previous posts on evidnce and our presuppositional interpretations of it…..Indeticle ERV's- I figure God uses the same design for similar things... after all- why reinvent the wheel if you don't have to.”
Clearly you don’t understand DNA, nor the significance of 7 IDENTICAL ERV’s in the same IDENTICAL ERV locations, or the evidence for Huamn Chromosome 2 Fusion, so naturally you don’t find them as compelling evidence. In other words, your ignorance sets you free to interpet ddata differently.
Here’s why its compelling evidence against any type of common designer argument. Go research them and you’ll see why the are compelling evidence for evolution. Let me know what you think after.
Evidence of Common Ancestry: ERVs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
Evidence of Common Ancestry: Human Chromosome 2
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
Ken Miller on Human Evolution
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
“They reference an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER because they believe in INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ID). And yes- somethings are just stupid”
Right, but ID proponents don’t infer this intelligent designer is an alien that created the complex biological systems. That they don’t do. So, the only other option is (drum roll) god. This is why ID = Creaionism and ID = GOD..
“Finally, since you love evolution so much- I guess you agree with Darwin in slavery of black people? And with Hitler and his supreme evolutionary race?”
No, I don’t. Darwin never advocated slavery of blacks. Evolution only deals with biological systems and how they change and doesn’t deal with ethical considerations of humans. Hitlers Nazi ordeal was the result of shared anti Semitism over the millennia, that attributed jews as Christ killers.
“Do you think se(x) with children is wrong?…… from an evolutionary standpoint.. because as I see it, an evolutionist has no standard for claiming it to be wrong.”
Of course it’s wrong. Like I said, evolution is a theory on organic life changing, it has no bearing on human morality and ethical concerns. These should be decided via democratic consensus for all parties involved. Lets try to stay on task and tackle one subject at a time instead of jumping all over the place. Stick with an argument, prove or disprove it and THEN move on. Lets not jump all over the place.
By the way- thatnks for agreeing with me that neither you , nor I was there... and that we both must INTERPRET the facts based on our presuppositions.
What was that? Was that the Second or THIRD time you didn't answer my questions while I answer yours?...
AIG, ICR and kent Hovind don’t publish peer reviewed science articles pal. I said SHOW me the evidence.
“there have been many studies in the last 100 years that show when massive flooding occurs over a short period of time, it creates the EXACT same geological layers as evolutionists claim occur over millions of years.”
Nope. Not the exact same, the sediments that are laid down relatively quickly are sand stone sediments and not ingenious rock, those are quite different. So again it’s not a matter of interpretation but what the evidence REALLY indicates.
The properties of the layers determine how fast a particular layer could have been laid down. (Obviously) Flooding generally always uses silt and sand sediment and lay it down faster than normal ingenious rocks would. Flooding, massive or not, can’t lay down layers of limestone, or igneous rock, but only sand stone sediments. This is why YEC ideas on layers of sediment is wrong, as are Polystrata fossils which are stuck in sand sediments. They overlook the obvious that sand sediments can be laid down many times faster than normal ingenious rock and so there are the same.
“Were you there when these things were created "billions of year ago"? No. Did you see it happen?”
No I never witnessed it directly, but by your flawed logic you never saw jebus die and resurrect and float to heaven either, both of us have to rely on EVIDENCE and how CREDIBLE they are. Your ‘ken ham’ question of if I was there is an illogical one, as to use it in the same phrase with any biblical texts is equally as destructive.
We do have nearly 4-dozen dating techniques, most of which overlap over given time periods that cross verify each other and achieve higher accuracy.
“I would expect all creation to show signs in one respect of being "old"….There are many other signs which point to it being young.”
Well, which is it YOUNG or OLD, make up your mind, you can’t claim both now can you? So, you’re YEC so where’s the evidence for a 6000 year old earth/universe which is credible and peer reviewed by scientists?
Would god also make a creation that indicates so much evidence for evolution if it wasn’t true? No, he wouldn’t.
“really have to get off this idea of "My facts are bigger than your facts”
No, facts and evidence are EVERYTHING!! Without facts and evidence to back them up everything is hearsay. So, lets see t he evidence for your 6000 year young universe/earth.
Agent-
You last questions were "How can Human Chromosome 2 Fusion be interpreted for a biblical creation model? It can’t And the 7 Identical ERV’s we and Chimps share in the exact same genetic locations, how can this be interpreted in the biblical creation of ID model? Again, it can’t just like Miller says. IDiots have no answers as to WHY an ID designer would purposely intend to mislead in so many ways."
Human Chromosome 2 - I don't answer it- I'm no scientist- but please refer to the previous posts on evidnce and our presuppositional interpretations of it.
Indeticle ERV's- I figure God uses the same design for similar things... after all- why reinvent the wheel if you don't have to.
I think they fall in line with Biblical creation. God created similar things similar ways. Makes perfect logical sense to me. How many home builders do you see trying to reinvent building theory with every house? Why would you think God does?
I have just clearly shown you at least one reason why and how these things fit, or can lead to, into a creationist worldview logically. Now you answer Why these things point TOWARDS evolution. And please explain WHY they lead us to logically to evolution... not just that they do.
Finally, since you love evolution so much- I guess you agree with Darwin in slavery of black people? And with Hitler and his supreme evolutionary race?
And I saved the most offiensive for last - Do you think se(x) with children is wrong? Why or why not? Explain it from an evolutionary standpoint.. because as I see it, an evolutionist has no standard for claiming it to be wrong.
Agent-
You said "So why then when Behe and others give examples of IC (Irreducible Complexity) do they instantly postulate an ‘intelligent designer’ created the complex systems?" in reference to intelligent design.
I seriously can't believe you said something this stupid... They reference an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER because they believe in INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ID). And yes- somethings are just stupid.
Agent-
Were you there when these things were created "billions of year ago"? No. Did you see it happen? Can you show me anyone who way there? No. So what you have are assumed answers from assumed tests which we assume are correct. Even so- When God created Adam in the garden of Eden God did not create a baby which had to learn to be a man- God created a full grown man. I would expect all creation to show signs in one respect of being "old". There are many other signs which point to it being young. You really have to get off this idea of "My facts are bigger than your facts"... I mean it really gets you nowhere in consideration of the theory of knowledge.
Bob-
You seem to think that the idea of God would unravel all science- but my point is that God, being the source of all order, logic, and uniformity- is the precondition for the validity and viability of science. I have not hear any evolutionist explain the uniformity of nature outside of the obvious fact that science wouldn't work without it.
It's like a man who drives a car, yet refuses to recognize the car maker, yet still uses the car.
Agent-
You say science (in any form) does not support creation, but rather supports evolution. I say otherwise. I say aALL the evidence is clearly in line with creation and never in line with evolution. There are scientist on both sides of the case. Again- it all depends on how we INTERPRET the evidence based on our presuppositions. For example- there have been many studies in the last 100 years that show when massive flooding occurs over a short period of time, it creates the EXACT same geological layers as evolutionists claim occur over millions of years. Evolutionists claim the rock layers show "millions of year" Creationists claim "Noah's flood". Same evidence- two different interpretations - based on differing presuppositional startingpoints. The FACT is that there are rock layers... HOW they got there is based on interpretations.
Not only do I answer your questions- I answered and gave reason for morality, the uniformity of nature, and the basis for the laws of logic. When I aksed you reasons for those you never answered. Untill you actually learn how to hold a conversation and answer the challenges presented to you- I will no longer talk with you on this subject.
“one is that gen is saying that we both use the same evidence and then come to differing conclusions”
Well, if he or you would be so kind as to clue us in on what credible peer reviewed scientific evidence indicates a 6000 year old earth/universe, global flood, a human population of 8, 4000 years ago and so on that validates your presupposition/assumptions.
Clearly this isn’t a matter of getting lost in translation of evidence or misinterpretation of some of it. Nearly every branch of Science can attest that the age of the earth isn’t 6000 years old, but closer to 4.6 Billion. The oldest chemical signs of life are Stromalites, which date to 3.85 Billion years old. Astronomy and Cosmology give evidence of a Universe that is close to 13.7 Billion years old and reveal such a vast Universe that anyone who would claim it’s all for little ol us is mighty ignorant and equally arrogant.
“ID proponents do not support a "god-of-the-gaps" or a "goddidit" theory.”
They don’t huh? So why then when Behe and others give examples of IC (Irreducible Complexity) do they instantly postulate an ‘intelligent designer’ created the complex systems? This is certainly an argument from ‘god of the gaps of ignorance, as they say that they don’t know how it’s done, so their defacto answer is (drum roll) ‘god did it or god made it that way!’
A 100 years ago we had no idea how a star worked and what composed them. At that time, an ID proponent would conclude:
"Well, those stars sure are complex, and we will NEVER figure them out and neither will ANYONE ELSE in the future, so they are obviously the result of ID/god."
Today, we know how and why stars give off energy and what their chemical composition is b/c we have the technology that can reveal such things. For a person to assert that something is too complex and CAN”T EVER be understood, is the quite audacious and arrogant. This is exactly what IDiots claim.
And who or what exactly is this Intelligently Designer? Dembski asserts that in fact ID =God. Do IDiots claim that ID = Alien intelligence that crafted organic life here on earth? No, they certainly won’t do that either as that would negate their very objective.
How can Human Chromosome 2 Fusion be interpreted for a biblical creation model? It can’t And the 7 Identical ERV’s we and Chimps share in the exact same genetic locations, how can this be interpreted in the biblical creation of ID model? Again, it can’t just like Miller says. IDiots have no answers as to WHY an ID designer would purposely intend to mislead in so many ways.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FGYzZOZxMw
Bob, you are an intelligent guy, I actually enjoy debating you, but if I were gen and were going to reply to what you said, I would probably just repeat what I said earlier.
I do think two things need to be cleared up though, one is that gen is saying that we both use the same evidence and then come to differing conclusions (largely based upon our presupposed beliefs about the nature of the world), the other is that God does not equal magic. ID proponents do not support a "god-of-the-gaps" or a "goddidit" theory. These are atheist jargon which ammount to absolutely nothing, they are neither accurate nor convincing. I think you wrote off God too quickly when you were younger.
Gen1_28, if I was a creationist and somebody told me "The exact same method used for paternity testing is used to determine evolutionary relationships" I would be interested in this so much I would research it and learn all about it I could. You showed no interest in it at all. You completely ignored it. I have been told creationists are willfully ignorant. Could this be true?
"You also continue to say that God works outside of science."
No, I didn't say that. What I did say is science does not care about any gods. Scientists don't use gods for anything.
I personally don't think any god works anywhere, because I don't believe in any gods. God is just another word for magic, it has no evidence, and it's obviously man-made. You are wasting your life believing in a delusion. Even worse you think your delusion has something to do with science. Try telling that to any competent scientist. Even religious scientists will tell you god has nothing to do with science, for the same reason god has nothing to do with garbage collection. Sorry, but your god delusion is worthless.
Gen1_28,
“You also seem to miss that evolutionsists have no reason to believe in the uniformity of nature other than it helps make their case- but they believe in it without giving reason to believe in it.”
Are there any logical reasons not to believe in Uniformity and of Universal Laws? Why would we consider that gravity hasn’t always been this way, it’s a foolish unfalsifiable claim silly so long as tests concurr it is a given way.
We can be certain in uniformity b/c we can use evidence, make conclusions and created new tests and predict the results ahead of time. If our understanding of a given theory or proposition is correct then the predictions should back the proposition,(like DNA backing evolutionary biology) if they don’t then they must go back to devising a hypothesis that is falsifiable that has predictable results while still upholding the model or theory. If this can’t be done, then the hypothesis or theory is wrong and must be discarded. That is science.
“Give me the evolutionary basis for the uniformity of nature, for morality, and for the laws of logic.”
Well, you can’t by fiat claim that only god could supply such things either, that in itself isn’t logical as you have no evidence for such claims that he exists at all. We could equally claim that only elves and other nonexistent agents can create those things you mentioned.
“You have mentioned how science would be impossible without the uniformity of nature and so "God must not exist".”
No, what I am saying is that the only means by which science can work is to assume no supernaturalism, including magic man. The other assumption we could have is there is a god, but this god would be deistic and not be an active role player in the goings on of everyday life and therefore god could still exist and science could still proceed. However, Christians like you don’t want that and he must be in this defined box of being active and all present.
Gen1_28
“Creationism, as a science, is the only one that looks at the evidence for what it is.”
No it doesn’t. Only Deism refers to nature as it actually is and used it as its reference for deduction based on reason. Creationism refers to religious texts that only its adherents claim is 100% and inherently true. But which creation story are we to use, after all we have over 3000+ gods, all with their own accounts of creation, death, life and so on. Of all those creation account non even uniformly conform to what science actually reveals about our Universe either.
We can see many things in not just the bible but other holy texts that don’t conform to the way the Universe/Nature really is, thus they are non uniform.
“Creationists just interpret them differently than Evolutionists.”
Since we’re both talking biblical creation though, what FACTS or credible evidence do we have that attest to a 6000 year old universe/earth? Astronomy and cosmology doesn’t back this.
What credible evidence do we have of a Noachian flood 4000 years ago? Archeological, geological, and chemstry evidence doesn’t back this.
What facts do we have that all of humanity can be traced back to 8 from the boat following the flood? mtDNA certainly doesn’t back this.
Need I go further?
No, there is no misinterpretation of the facts, the facts show how the universe was and is and the bible and other creation stories show it another way. These creation stories are the result of people who lacked science and were ignorant of many things and couldn’t possibly have known what we know.
Gen, show me all the evidence you gloat of and IF I can’t debunk it on face value I will site works that have. To gloat that it’s all in accordance with interpretation on evidence is pathetic. Bring the evidence that backs your claims already.
And Bob-
I read every word of yours. And you seem to miss that science requires certain presuppositional points in order for it to work- like the uniformity of nature.
You also seem to miss that evolutionsists have no reason to believe in the uniformity of nature other than it helps make their case- but they believe in it without giving reason to believe in it.
You also continue to say that God works outside of science. Get it through your puny brain (there I said it) that the Bible says God is logical, the maker of science, and that God never does anything outside of His nature. He NEVER goes against "science".
You said"For example, DNA analysis for paternity testing is no different from DNA analysis for evolutionary relationships."
This requires the ASSUMPTION in the uniformity between species, a presupposition based on evolution. The evidence is plain. The evidence says there are similarities, even remarkable ones-- ones that are even identicle- but that is where the evidence stops. Where you go from there is a concludion based on YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONS.
If a scientist saw "a miracle" then there would be scientific evidence to explain it. There was plenty of scientific evidence to explain medicine in the past- many people just didn't understand it. And so those people were thought of as alchemists, etc. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it impossible.
Now I have answered your questions- answer mine. Give me the evolutionary basis for the uniformity of nature, for morality, and for the laws of logic.
Let me explain this so you might understand.
There is evidence, such as the many rock layers or markings in our genetic makeup. Creationists and evolutionists have this same information and yet we come to different conclusions. Why?
Just saying the other person is ignoring the evidence doesn’t work. It doesn’t solve anything. We both believe the other isn’t seeing the “truth”. So the question is, how do we come to our individual viewpoints. What PRESUPPOSITIONS do we each use to evaluate the evidence? Do those presuppositions make sense?
Evolutions claim that from chaos came order. Okay- let’s go down this road. People are essentially one molecule, or group of them, bumping into other groups of molecules. This means that all those nasty things we don’t mention in polite society are just one molecule bumping into another molecule… so it’s okay to ra pe (read together) and pillage, etc, because it’s just one molecule bumping into another.
Contining down this road… mankinds mental abilities came to exist by mere chance, an accident. Why should we think that this accident makes sense? Why should think an accident is right?
Since “order came from chaos” and it brought all these great things we experience today, like the human mind, art, etc- why should we value order at all? Order had nothing to do with it. It all came from chaos. Therefore, science is an orderly attempt to understand this accident that came from chaos, thereby claiming superiority over that which made it, disclaiming its own foundations.
So, from evolution you get no REASON for morality, or right and wrong, or the uniformity of nature, or even the laws of logic (which you are currently using to debate). All these things must be borrowed from somewhere else in order to make sense of the evolutionary world view.
In my nest post I will show why Christianity and the Bible fulfill all these requirements… but that must wait for tomorrow.
Gen1_28,
You responded, “you have just taken the God of the Bible and tried to fit him into your box because you don't understand him. I would suggest more reading of His word and those who understand him. Obviously you don't. The Bible is the very word of God. Therefore it must either be true (creation) or God is a liar... and you have no evidence for such libel.”
Typical creationist answer: evolutionists just don’t understand, if they would read their Bibles more (and more, and more), then the truth would be revealed to them, light would dawn on their obviously puny brains, they would give up their so-called “science”, and believe the literal scientific Bible truthiness, which is just so truthy, that its true. Ya know.
Well… I believe the Bible, I’m sorry you can’t see that.
http://didymuspov.blogspot.com/
Gen1_28, I'm wondering if you bother to read my comments.
I said earlier "For example, DNA analysis for paternity testing is no different from DNA analysis for evolutionary relationships."
What part of that don't you understand? You do accept the results for paternity testing, don't you? You don't seriously think presuppositions have anything to do with paternity testing, do you?
The exact same method used for paternity testing is used to determine evolutionary relationships, so if a person accepts the results of paternity testing, he has absolutely no reason to question the determination of evolutionary relationships when it uses the exact same method.
If you don't understand, that's fine with me. You are giving your religion a terrible reputation. What intelligent young person would want to have anything to do with an anti-science religion that has no excuse for denying what every scientist can see with their own eyes?
I strongly doubt you want to educate yourself about DNA evidence for common ancestry, but other people might want to read this book which was published in 2006: "The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution" by Sean B. Carroll.
Gen1_28: You have mentioned how science would be impossible without the uniformity of nature and so "God must not exist".
I don't think you get it. Science doesn't care whether a god exists or not. God is just another word for magic and scientists don't invoke magic. Science doesn't say there is no god, science just ignores the god idea. Science doesn't say "god must not exist". Science does not give a fig about any gods.
Imagine a scientist saying "Here a miracle occurred." He would be laughed at. How is invoking a miracle going to solve any problem? Science ignores the god fantasy.
This is the problem with the Institute for Creation Research, which is the topic of this thread. They invoke magic for everything. What the heck do they research? How does anyone research magic? The Institute for Creation Research is a joke, it has absolutely nothing to do with science, and it's a disgrace Texas is even considering letting them offer a degree in Science Education. The state of Texas has a big problem. Their public school science standards have received the lowest possible grade, and their school board is infested with incompetent people who know nothing about science.
I don't promote ID- I think it is impossible to defend it.
Creationism, as a science, is the only one that looks at the evidence for what it is. Evolution interprets the same evidence - but incorrectly due to its unfounded claims to certain presuppositions, such as the uniformity of nature. Not to call names here- but we all have the same FACTS- Creationists just interpret them differently than Evolutionists. So, whose method of interpretation is more logical and makes more sense? THAT is the only way this topic will be answered, otherwise we just throw each others interpretations in each others faces and get nowhere.
Didymus- you have just taken the God of the Bible and tried to fit him into your box because you don't understand him. I would suggest more reading of His word and those who understand him. Obviously you don't. The Bible is the very word of God. Therefore it must either be true (creation) or God is a liar... and you have no evidence for such libel.
Bob & Agent - There is plenty of science out there. The problem is you don't like the conclusions because they don't conform to what you want. You have mentioned how science would be impossible without the uniformity of nature and so "God must not exist". And you made claims trying to describe a god that is not in the bible- one whom throws his will around on a whim, turning all science upside down. This is not the God of the Bible and you haven't given evidence for WHY you can claim uniformity in nature. And just saying "but it makes my case work" doesn't cut it. Of course it works! God made it that way- and you have to STEAL from the Biblical view to make sense of your own.
I apologize for not having time to answer every specific question as asked- but I shall try to answer you main points.
Presuppositions have EVERYTHING to do with it. Science is based on certain Presuppositional points, such as the uniformity of nature. Evolutionists use this idea of the uniformity of nature without giving reason for it. They assume the presupposition of the uniformity of nature in order to make sense out of science.
God works logically and scientifically. He NEVER goes outside of His rules. Just because you don't happen to understand something, does not make it impossible. Just because you don't understand creation or the incarnation of Christ, or the Atom bomb- doesn't make those things non-existent. God, according to the Bible, is logical and uniform- do just "bend the rules of nature at a whim" would be outside of his character. It is BECAUSE he is uniform and logical that science is possible. If evolution were true, then all existence would be based on random chance- and how could we rely on random chance for the uniformity of nature? We couldn't. That is why Science is ONLY possible if God exists.
I am very familiar with the idea of falsifiability. You have to test by experiment or observation that something doesn't exist. Can you look at all creation at one moment in time? No- so therefore since you cannot see all place at all times you cannot observe or experiment to prove that God does not exist - You can only say that at this point in time in this location I did not see Him. Obviously some people here aren’t familiar with epistemology and the inability to prove something does not exist.
Gen1_28: "BobCu- you said "The DI does not want to admit ID requires a god, because that would make their ideas non-scientific." But here you are asserting that the existence ofGod disallows the validity of Science. I want to point out that this is not the view of the Bible. I see no logic in this. What is your foundation for belief that if God exists, then science must not work?"
God can exist if you want it to exist. Just leave God out of science please. Invoking God has never solved any problem. Even religious scientists know this so they never let their beliefs influence their work. If they threw out a scientific discovery because it conflicted with their beliefs they would be a disgrace to their profession.
Gen1_28: "Didymus- There is a mountain of evidence. The question is 'how do you interpret it?' Why do you claim there is a mountain of evidence FOR evolution. I can rightly claim there is a mountain of evidence FOR creation, by using the same exact evidence, just interpreting it through different (and correct) presuppositions."
Sorry, but presuppositions don't have anything to do with it. For example, DNA analysis for paternity testing is no different from DNA analysis for evolutionary relationships. Creationists who accept the results of paternity testing have to accept the evidence for the common ancestry of two species because both use the exact same method. Your "presuppositions" is just an excuse to reject evidence that conflict with your beliefs. Sorry, that doesn't work any more. DNA evidence can only be interpreted one way. Evolution is not an opinion. It's as much as a fact as gravity, and your denial of it just gives your religion a bad reputation.
Gen1_28,
“But here you are asserting that the existence of God disallows the validity of Science”
It’s not so much the existence of ‘god’, but the assumption that his existence isn’t’ Deistic and in that he has real time control over our universe, that Science can’t assume. To do so would negate scientific testing.
Apparently you’re not that familiar with ‘falsifiability’ and how critical it is to the scientific method. For something to be testable and applicable under science it MUST be something that is falsifiable. In other words, the given proposition must rely on evidence that can determine its proposition for and against it and it can’t be something simply derived by ‘faith alone’. Evidence is key.
By the very definition of ‘god’, as a supernatural agent that can do anything at anytime, having that sort of supernatural assumption intertwined with science and testing isn’t possible b/c one could never be sure if gravity is really so b/c of a gravitational field works in a particular way or b/c a supernatural agent (in this case god) is making it so. This is why god as a supernatural agent, like gnomes, elves, goblins and the like are excluded from the get go.
This is why only by removing his assumed existence can things be falsifiable at any length.
This is where falsifiability comes into play and why anything that is supernatural can’t by definition be included into science tests, as to assume it is so would negate testing altogether as it would remove UNIFORMITY and the Universal Laws that we can use to further make tests and predictions. If nothing is UNIFROM b/c a supernatural agent (god) can in a whim cause miracles and cause untestable supernatural events then the UNIFORMITY breaks down entirely. This is why god is never and cant’ be included into realms of science as his very nature is assumed to control anything in a whim, which would negate testing.
“I can rightly claim there is a mountain of evidence FOR creation”
Right, but how credible is this evidence? And how well does it conform to biblical claims. Is there credible, peer reviewed evidence for a 6000 year old earth/universe? A global flood and so on?
What else could ‘ID’ be Gen1_28? Dembski himself admits that ID =god and not ID advocate would say or imply that ID = Aliens of higher intelligence as that would negate their principle point. No, ID most certainly implies god.
Gen1_28,
I interpret the creation stories as mythological, not literal truth, i.e. they are trying to paint pictures of theological truths, not scientific ones.
You ask, “How do you explain that death did not enter into the world until after sin in the Garden of Eden? How can you explain that the Bible says God created Man from the dust in His own image, yet profess evolution?” I don’t profess to know how things all literally turned out with the origin of sin, and what exactly is meant by God’s “image” in us, just as I can’t explain all the details of the mystery of the incarnation.
You contend, “Why do you claim there is a mountain of evidence FOR evolution. I can rightly claim there is a mountain of evidence FOR creation, by using the same exact evidence, just interpreting it through different (and correct) presuppositions.”
I strongly disagree with you here. Creationism, as a “science”, overwhelmingly ignores the evidence, besides biological science being tossed out, most of chemistry, all of geology, and all of astronomy, are tossed out, and appearances are forced to conform to a handful of verses in the Bible. I prefer to go along with what the scientists, with their checks and balances, peer review, and testing find, and simply look at the Bible from a different perspective. After all, my interpretation of the Bible is always and only man-made, and therefore flexible and subject to change.
Also, I’m not trying to prove God’s existence, to me it makes reasonable sense to believe he exists, and I think it is reasonable to believed that Jesus is the incarnation of God, that he died and was resurrected. I don’t see a need to try proving this “scientifically” (which would be impossible), nor do I see any conflict with this and science.
BobCu-
you said "The DI does not want to admit ID requires a god, because that would make their ideas non-scientific." But here you are asserting that the existence ofGod disallows the validity of Science. I want to point out that this is not the view of the Bible. I see no logic in this. What is your foundation for belief that if God exists, then science must not work?
Didymus-
You claim that you are a "theistic evolutionist", but how do you explain that death did not enter into the world untill after sin in the Garden of Eden? How can you explain that the Bible says God created Man from the dust in His own image, yet profess evolution? I don't understand.
There is a mountain of evidence. The question is "how do you interpret it?" Why do you claim there is a mountain of evidence FOR evolution. I can rightly claim there is a mountain of evidence FOR creation, by using the same exact evidence, just interpreting it through different (and correct) presuppositions.
Finally, the Bible says "In the beginning God..." thereby proclaiming that Gods existence is presumed. To "prove" anything, we have to make some claim to a "higher standard" which to judge. We cannot prove God because He is the ultimate and highest standard. There is no standard above Him. As he said in scripture to Abraham ... "For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself” (Heb. 6:13). To try to "prove" God is making a claim that there is something greater by which you can prove Him. And this is a non-Christian philosophy.
Chris333-- "...if ID was directly related to God then sure you could prove God, but it is not, so your statement is not fair or proper."
ID addresses the existence of an agent beyond the natural/material universe. That is by definition supernatural. We are now on the same playing field as proving the existence of God. By science, that cannot be done. Science cannot prove either, for it must deal restrictively to the observable universe. ID is therefore not science, for it is going beyond science into either theology or philosophy.
Chris333,
Well, to be honest with you, I didn’t actually expect anyone to respond to my post, except to maybe have a giggle or two.
But you bring up a good point. You mention about my post, “What is this? I can't even reply to this.” Well, that’s exactly how I, a theistic evolutionist, felt about Karl’s post.
When I originally read Karl’s post I asked myself – should I tell him he’s wrong, that there is a mountain of evidence for evolution, that there is no real conflict between the Bible and evolution (only a conflict between certain literalist interpretations of the Bible and evolution). But I realized I’d be wasting digital bytes doing that, because there is no evidence that can be presented that he would accept in any form or way. So I poked fun at his post instead.
BobCu - They do that because they want the rest of us to believe that it is actually science. Doesn't it sound scientific to say, "We can tell by looking at it that it is designed but can't infer who the designer is"? See, isn't that scientific?
Hello Chris333.
"ID does not propose god-did-it"
Wonderful. This is a favorite topic of mine. Intelligent Design. I have been reading about it for several years now. I know all about the irreducible complexity and the other claims of intelligent design.
What is interesting to me is your "ID does not propose god-did-it". It's the same claim the Discovery Institute makes.
DId you ever notice Discovery Institute (DI) and Intelligent Design (ID) use the same first letters, but reversed?
I have a lot of problems with the Discovery Institute. They have never discovered anything. What they do every single day is put out press releases which always contain lies about science and scientists. Their favorite method of dishonesty is quote mining a scientist, taking quotes out of context to distort their meaning. It's for a good reason they are called the Dishonesty Institute.
Their biggest lie is "we don't know who the designer is, and it doesn't matter who the designer is".
Does anyone believe this? I don't think so. Everyone knows the designer is a god. The DI does not want to admit ID requires a god, because that would make their ideas non-scientific. I have to wonder who do they think they are fooling. Certainly competent scientists, including competent religious scientists, do not take them seriously.
Before any of you theologians scream at me, I would like to clarify a point of contention.
In a previous post I said "Science is, by definition, devoid of a belief in creation or evolution..." and I would like to clearly explain this to the Christian here. Science is an impersonal system of how to understand creation. Since it is an impersonal system of understanding and not a person- it does not have any belief system in and of itself which itself has concieved or believes. Science is irrefutably and irrevocably tied to Christian presuppositions including the uniformity of nature and it clearly points continually to our Creator. But science in and of itself is a system (though created by God and continually glorifying God) it does not believe in evolution or creation.
I agree with Didymus. Believing in evolution is about as wacky as believing in all the other stuff- I want to clearly debate the points brought in these posts.
First, It's impossible to "prove" God. You can give evidence for Him from which we can draw conclusions. But to "prove" he exsts scientifically is impossible. You can't put God in a test tube in your lab- the same way that it is impossible to scientifically "prove" that Abe Lincoln was president. You can give evidence for it- but you can't "prove" it. Same goes for "proving" the origins of life. You can give evidence for the origins, but you cannot scientifically prove it since yo ucan't go back in time... blah blah blah.
Science is science. No matter what BobCu says. Science is, by definition, devoid of a belief in creation or evolution- rather it is how we understand "how stuff works". We, again, draw conclusions based on the evidence. The evidence is interpreted through our presuppositions. For those like BobCu who believe in evolution, the believe that billions of dead things laid down in rock layers all over the earth "prove" evolution. If we had a world wide flood like those crazy Christians believe would we really have billions of dead things laid down in rock layer all over the earth?... Yeah, we would. But what do we ACTUALLY find? Billions of dead things laid down... you get the point. Same evidence, interpreted different ways BECAUSE of our presuppositional starting points. An incompetent teacher would be one, not who teachs evolutions or creation, but either one without validating their own presuppostions, seeing if their presuppositions make logical sense.
BobCu- I agree that it is immoral for a teacher to lie to his/her students. I understand lying is wrong because God, the standard for right and wrong, has told us it is wrong (aka immoral). What is your standard for deciding if something is immoral?
didymus, what are you saying? What is it? Do you know? You garbled up a bunch of stuff that is somehow related to what Karl said, which also wasn't the most coherent argument, and then from your garbled mess you came up with the answer that evolution must be true?! What is this? I can't even reply to this.
theotrek, if ID was directly related to God then sure you could prove God, but it is not, so your statement is not fair or proper. Also, if you can prove evolution (I mean prove, not give evidence) then I would be very surprised.
Bob, ID does not propose god-did-it, that statement shows your lack of understanding of the opposition and so I am not going to bother debating until you debunk the atheist rhetoric you have heard.
"Institute for Creation Research"
"The third request was for the institute to present material that show research activities underway and show them to be based on solid scientific research."
I'm trying real hard to figure out how somebody could research god-did-it. Anyone know what this would be? After a person says "god did it" what else is there to do?
"online master's degree in Science Education"
I get it. They want incompetent teachers to be allowed to get a degree so they can get jobs lying to students about science. The preachers already teach supernatural magic in church. Why is it necessary to infest schools with this nonsense? Does anyone realize how immoral it is to for a teacher to lie to her students?
The only possible good thing about this is it would be easy to identify and not hire an incompetent science teacher. Anyone with a degree from the Institute of Magic Research would most certainly be incompetent.
The Science Standards for Texas public schools received the lowest possible grade, "F", from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. As far as I know there is nobody in Texas government who cares about this disgraceful grade. Now Texas is considering letting this horrible anti-science Institute for Creation Research give out science education degrees. What is wrong with Texas?
Karl--If you can prove ID by scientific means, I would guess you can prove God's existence by the same.
I just saw the Blue Fairy a moment ago, the Wicked Witch of the North was picking her out of her teeth, and this happened while I was reading Al Jazeera about genies being spotted in Arabia (who’d a thought). My kid gnawed off the tooth fairy’s head yesterday (I still have the evidence, I’ll take a picture if you’d like), and Santa and I had cookies and coffee a few weeks ago (he stuck around awhile since I was the only place that had coffee here in Utah, a dry state). As for the Headless Horseman, last time I saw him he was driving a Mustang Convertible. And the mathematical definition of impossible… is impossible; I don’t know where you got idea from. Evolution must be true.
WAIT!!! Hold the press! A UNICORN is outside my window right now!!! YES!!!
Evolution is a zillion times more impossible than the Blue Fairy, the Witch of the North, Aladdin's genies, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Headless Horseman, and the mathematical definition of impossible all put together.
See http://www.lifescienceprize.org/